Page 5 of 5

Re: Anyone benchmarked tactile sensor response time under rapid contact?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by scott21
@ronald.clark Just to be precise about one thing: 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: Anyone benchmarked tactile sensor response time under rapid contact?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by joseph.robinson
@scott21 Minor factual note: 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: Anyone benchmarked tactile sensor response time under rapid contact?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by sarah.santos3
Minor factual note: 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. 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.

Re: Anyone benchmarked tactile sensor response time under rapid contact?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by joseph_sing
Minor factual note: 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. 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.

Re: Anyone benchmarked tactile sensor response time under rapid contact?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by smartinez
@joseph_sing This matches something I went through recently. 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: Anyone benchmarked tactile sensor response time under rapid contact?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by arjunsanchez
I'd push back on this a bit. 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: Anyone benchmarked tactile sensor response time under rapid contact?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by giulia.roberts4
This is a great summary, thanks. LiDAR gives reliable, lighting-independent range data but is heavier, pricier, and gives sparser point clouds up close than stereo or depth cameras, which is why a lot of humanoids lean on stereo/depth cameras for near-field manipulation and reserve LiDAR (if present at all) for longer-range navigation. 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: Anyone benchmarked tactile sensor response time under rapid contact?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by arjunsanchez
@giulia.roberts4 I see it a little differently. 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: Anyone benchmarked tactile sensor response time under rapid contact?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by elarsen
I can speak to this a bit. IMU drift over time (bias instability) is usually the real culprit behind slowly diverging state estimates, not noise - it's typically handled with sensor fusion against other references (visual odometry, joint kinematics) rather than trying to eliminate drift at the source. 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.