Best practices for mounting an IMU to avoid vibration noise?

IMUs, force/torque sensors, depth cameras, LiDAR, tactile skin, SLAM, and state estimation.
emma_whit
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2025 11:20 pm

Re: Best practices for mounting an IMU to avoid vibration noise?

Post by emma_whit »

Genuinely curious - Tactile skin arrays have improved a lot, but 'good enough to matter' really depends on the task - coarse contact detection across a large area is fairly mature, while fine, high-resolution force distribution sensing (like a human fingertip) is still the harder problem. Event cameras (which report per-pixel brightness changes rather than full frames) are still more of a research curiosity than a production sensor for humanoids, mainly because the software ecosystem and processing pipelines around them are far less mature than for standard frame-based cameras.
mary.taylor6
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2025 10:51 pm

Re: Best practices for mounting an IMU to avoid vibration noise?

Post by mary.taylor6 »

@emma_whit Here's what I know on this: Latency between a perceived event (like a slip) and a corrective control response matters enormously for balance - even 50-100ms of extra perception latency can be the difference between a smooth recovery and a fall, which is part of why a lot of balance-critical sensing is proprioceptive rather than vision-based.
jessica_faro
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2025 5:26 am

Re: Best practices for mounting an IMU to avoid vibration noise?

Post by jessica_faro »

@mary.taylor6 Side note that might be relevant: Depth sensing range and reliability both degrade outdoors in direct sunlight for most structured-light and active stereo cameras, since the ambient IR washes out the projected pattern - it's a real limitation for humanoids intended for anything beyond indoor, controlled environments. Proprioception (the robot's sense of its own joint angles, velocities, and forces) tends to get less attention than flashy vision systems, even though a lot of balance and manipulation failures trace back to proprioceptive noise or miscalibration rather than a vision problem.
they/them
amara.brown
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2026 5:53 am

Re: Best practices for mounting an IMU to avoid vibration noise?

Post by amara.brown »

To answer this directly: Latency between a perceived event (like a slip) and a corrective control response matters enormously for balance - even 50-100ms of extra perception latency can be the difference between a smooth recovery and a fall, which is part of why a lot of balance-critical sensing is proprioceptive rather than vision-based.
Ex-automotive, now full-time robots.
barbara.jones
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2025 6:12 pm

Re: Best practices for mounting an IMU to avoid vibration noise?

Post by barbara.jones »

Slightly off-topic, but related: Multi-camera calibration drifts over time from thermal expansion, vibration, and mechanical wear, which is why production systems typically run periodic recalibration routines rather than assuming a one-time factory calibration holds forever.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
george92
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2025 4:18 pm

Re: Best practices for mounting an IMU to avoid vibration noise?

Post by george92 »

Here's what I know on this: Multi-camera calibration drifts over time from thermal expansion, vibration, and mechanical wear, which is why production systems typically run periodic recalibration routines rather than assuming a one-time factory calibration holds forever. Force/torque sensors near the ankle give a direct read on ground reaction forces, which is valuable for balance control, but they add cost, a failure point, and routing complexity right at a joint that already takes the most mechanical abuse.
she/her | grad student, biped locomotion
ethan_fisc
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2024 1:36 am

Re: Best practices for mounting an IMU to avoid vibration noise?

Post by ethan_fisc »

Just to be precise about one thing: Proprioception (the robot's sense of its own joint angles, velocities, and forces) tends to get less attention than flashy vision systems, even though a lot of balance and manipulation failures trace back to proprioceptive noise or miscalibration rather than a vision problem.
jwang
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2025 7:28 pm

Re: Best practices for mounting an IMU to avoid vibration noise?

Post by jwang »

@ethan_fisc Here's the relevant bit as far as I understand it: Sensor fusion mostly earns its keep by covering for each individual sensor's weaknesses - vision struggles with occlusion and lighting, IMUs drift, force/torque sensors are noisy at low loads - fusing them gives a more robust estimate than any one source alone, independent of raw compute. Proprioception (the robot's sense of its own joint angles, velocities, and forces) tends to get less attention than flashy vision systems, even though a lot of balance and manipulation failures trace back to proprioceptive noise or miscalibration rather than a vision problem.
Post Reply