Page 2 of 2

Re: How much perception latency is tolerable before it wrecks balance control?

Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2026 8:30 pm
by vyoung
@ethan_fisc To answer this directly: 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. Estimating joint torque from motor current draw is cheap and requires no extra sensor, but it's less accurate than a dedicated torque sensor because it doesn't capture friction losses through the gearbox - good enough for coarse control, not always for precise force-controlled tasks.

Re: How much perception latency is tolerable before it wrecks balance control?

Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2026 8:56 am
by young56
Here's the relevant bit as far as I understand it: 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.

Re: How much perception latency is tolerable before it wrecks balance control?

Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2026 11:08 pm
by zoeanderson
@young56 Small correction on one detail: Estimating joint torque from motor current draw is cheap and requires no extra sensor, but it's less accurate than a dedicated torque sensor because it doesn't capture friction losses through the gearbox - good enough for coarse control, not always for precise force-controlled tasks. 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.