Page 2 of 6

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2026 1:31 am
by nicole57
From what I've seen: A minimum viable sensing suite for safe bipedal walking generally includes joint encoders, an IMU for orientation/angular velocity, and either force/torque sensing or accurate current-based torque estimation at the ankles - everything else (vision, tactile, LiDAR) adds capability rather than being strictly required just to stay upright.

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2026 4:13 am
by jhansen
Still learning the space, so correct me if wrong - Unitree's Dex3-1 dexterous hand packs around 33 pressure/tactile sensors per hand across the fingers and palm, capable of sensing pressure roughly in the 10g-2500g range - a useful reference point for what 'production tactile sensing' looks like right now.

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2026 7:56 am
by barbara50
@jhansen One nitpick - 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. 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. Reminds me a bit of the early drone hobbyist scene, honestly.

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2026 11:03 am
by camila.jackson0
@barbara50 +1 to this. Worth adding: 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. Vibration is one of the most underrated sources of noisy IMU and tactile readings - mounting matters as much as sensor quality, and a poorly isolated mount can add more noise than the sensor's own datasheet specs would suggest.

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2026 3:12 pm
by kwilliams
That's the official framing, at least - reality tends to lag a bit. 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. 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.

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2026 2:42 pm
by amara.brown
Thanks for laying this out, genuinely useful. 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. 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.

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2026 4:20 am
by smartinez
Ran into exactly this myself. 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. 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.

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by novikova63
@smartinez That's the official framing, at least - reality tends to lag a bit. 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: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by greta78
This matches something I went through recently. 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.

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by young58
Same conclusion I've come to. Also worth noting: 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.