Design and Implementation of an Anthropomorphic Robotic Arm Prosthesis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The development and manufacture of prosthetic limbs is one of the important tendencies of development of medical technique. Taking into account the development of modern electronic technology and automated systems and its mobility and compactness, the actual task is to create a prosthesis that will be close to a fully functioning human limb in its anthropomorphic properties, capable of reproducing its basic actions with high accuracy.
The authors analyze the main directions in the development of a control system for electronic limb prostheses. The description and results of practical implementation of a prototype of an anthropomorphic prosthetic arm and its control system are presented in the paper.
Interesting contribution!
Some minors suggestions with a pure academic spirit:
1. Abstract is not well written. It must be rewritten and it must better summarize the sections. Now the aim is at the end. There is only one senence summarizing meth/res/disc etc.
2. Insert a clear purpose
3. The use of bold in the body of the ms can create confusion
4. The article does not follow the standard of organization (methods,results). However its message is clear and effective. I do not think it needs a rearrangement.
Author Response
We wish to thank reviewers and the editor for their valuable comments and suggestions. We truly appreciate their suggestions and comments. Having detailed comments and recommendations helped us to significantly improve the manuscript. We have significantly revised the paper. In the following, we respond to the reviewers’ comments and give the details of how they have been considered.
Point 1: Abstract is not well written. It must be rewritten and it must better summarize the sections. Now the aim is at the end. There is only one sentence summarizing meth/res/disc etc.
Response 1: We truly appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions and comments.
We completely agree with the comment made by the reviewer. We tried to correct the annotation based on the comments and added information. We added Section 2 presents the brief analysis of the main directions in the development of robotic arm designs.
Point 2: Insert a clear purpose.
Response 2: We truly appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions and comments. We completely agree with the comment made by the reviewer. We have added the purpose of the research to section 1 after the second paragraph.
Point 3: The use of bold in the body of the ms can create confusion.
Response 3: We truly appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions and comments. We completely agree with the comment made by the reviewer. We have corrected the text accordance with the journal's requirements.
Point 4: The article does not follow the standard of organization (methods, results).
Response 4: We truly appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions and comments. We completely agree with the comment made by the reviewer. We have significantly revised the paper. Now the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the brief analysis of the main directions in the development of robotic arm designs. Section 3 presents the methods and results of the development, manufacture and assembly of the design of the anthropomorphic robotic arm, data on the mass-dimensional parameters and properties of the mechanical design of the developed prototype of an anthropomorphic robotic arm. Also Section 3 presents the structure of automated and control systems, analysis and calculations of the power supply and control circuits of the robotic anthropomorphic arm. The obtained results and links to video files demonstrating the work of the anthropomorphic robotic arm are presented in Section 4. The conclusions and future work are presented in Section 5.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In the abstract, the authors stated that they analyzed the main trends in the development of electronic control systems for limb prostheses . However, there is nothing about control in the introduction. Moreover, the Authors referred to only a few articles, about half of which are from several years ago. Hence, they did not carry out an extensive or up-to-date review of the work in progress. The introduction requires a thorough extension and consideration of such issues as modeling, design, control in relation to anthropomorphic robotic arm prosthesis.
The authors wrote that: "this work presents the results of the analysis, calculation, design and the practical realization of a working prototype a robotic anthropomorphic arm-hand". It all fits into four pages of the manuscript (seven pages minus the title page, introduction, and references). Everything is presented briefly, without proper documentation and descriptions. The manuscript adds nothing new or interesting to the scientific and engineering community. It contains simple information, a few drawings and photos, trivial calculations. The complete lack of experimental results. The presented manuscript is basically a short, very short report, not a scientific article. Actually, everything needs to be improved.
Author Response
We wish to thank reviewers and the editor for their valuable comments and suggestions. We truly appreciate their suggestions and comments. Having detailed comments and recommendations helped us to significantly improve the manuscript. We have significantly revised the paper. In the following, we respond to the reviewers’ comments and give the details of how they have been considered.
Point 1: In the abstract, the authors stated that they analyzed the main trends in the development of electronic control systems for limb prostheses. However, there is nothing about control in the introduction.
Response 1: We truly appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions and comments.
We completely agree with the comment made by the reviewer. We added Section 2 presents the brief analysis of the main directions in the development of robotic arm designs. Also an analysis of existing directions for the development of prosthetic control systems was added in Section 3.2.
Point 2: The authors referred to only a few articles, about half of which are from several years ago. Hence, they did not carry out an extensive or up-to-date review of the work in progress.
Response 2: We completely agree with the comment made by the reviewer. We added Section 2 presents the brief analysis of the main directions in the development of robotic arm designs, a comparison of the main parameters of existing developments was added.
Point 3: The introduction requires a thorough extension and consideration of such issues as modeling, design, control in relation to anthropomorphic robotic arm prosthesis.
Response 3: We truly appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions and comments. We completely agree with the comment made by the reviewer. We have significantly revised the paper. The main parameters that were taken into account during the design were added in the introduction. The features of control systems used in robotics and prosthetics were added in section 3. The results of modeling and testing of the developed prototype are presented in Section 3.1 and added to section 4.
Point 4: Everything is presented briefly, without proper documentation and descriptions. The manuscript adds nothing new or interesting to the scientific and engineering community. It contains simple information, a few drawings and photos, trivial calculations.
Response 4: We truly appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions and comments. We completely agree with the comment made by the reviewer. We have significantly revised the paper. Now the document is structured as follows: Section 2 presents a brief analysis of the main directions of the development of robotic manipulator designs, comparing its parameters with the prototype presented in the paper. Section 3 presents the methods and results of the development, manufacture and assembly of the design of the anthropomorphic robotic arm, data on the mass-dimensional parameters and properties of the mechanical design of the developed prototype of an anthropomorphic robotic arm. Also Section 3 presents the structure of automated and control systems, analysis and calculations of the power supply and control circuits of the robotic anthropomorphic arm. The obtained results are presented in Section 4. The conclusions and future work are presented in Section 5.
Point 5: The complete lack of experimental results.
Response 5: We truly appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions and comments. We completely agree with the comment made by the reviewer. We have significantly revised the paper. The results of modeling and testing of the developed prototype are presented in Section 3.1 and added to section 4 in the corrected version of the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The development and manufacture of prosthetic limbs is one of the important tendencies of development of medical technique. Taking into account the development of modern electronic technology and automated systems and its mobility and compactness, the actual task is to create a prosthesis that will be close to a fully functioning human limb in its anthropomorphic properties, capable of reproducing its basic actions with high accuracy.
The authors analyze the main directions in the development of a control system for electronic limb prostheses. The description and results of practical implementation of a prototype of an anthropomorphic prosthetic arm and its control system are presented in the paper.
The manuscript is interesting and attractive.
I think it must be rearranged as a scientific article.
These are my comments:
1. The abstract must be entirely rewritten better summarizing the sections
2. The manuscript must be rearranged according to a standard scientific article. I suggest for example to rewrite and rearrange section 2 and section 3 into methods and into results.
3. Authors write in the discussion “The novelty of the project lies in the design of an anthropomorphic robotic arm that simulates real human movements more accurately than existing analogues of bionic hands.” Discussion should compare to studies produced by other authors
4. Insert the limitations in the discussion
5. Insert a flow chart (after applying (2)) describing the design of the study.
I’ll be happy to review the revised manuscript.
Good work!!
Author Response
We wish to thank reviewers and the editor for their valuable comments and suggestions. We truly appreciate their suggestions and comments. Having detailed comments and recommendations helped us to significantly improve the manuscript. We have significantly revised the paper. In the following, we respond to the reviewers’ comments and give the details of how they have been considered.
Point 1: The abstract must be entirely rewritten better summarizing the sections.
Response 1: We truly appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions and comments.
We completely agree with the comment made by the reviewer. We’ve tried to correct the annotation in accordance with the comments. Also it was added the information and results that were presented in the article.
Point 2: The manuscript must be rearranged according to a standard scientific article. I suggest for example to rewrite and rearrange section 2 and section 3 into methods and into results.
Response 2: We completely agree with the comment made by the reviewer. We have significantly revised the paper. The main parameters that were taken into account during the design were added in the introduction. Section 2 presents a brief analysis of the main directions of the development of robotic manipulator designs, comparing its parameters with the prototype presented in the paper. The features of control systems used in robotics and prosthetics were added in section 3. The results of modeling and testing of the developed prototype are presented in Section 3.1 and added to section 4.
Point 3: Authors write in the discussion “The novelty of the project lies in the design of an anthropomorphic robotic arm that simulates real human movements more accurately than existing analogues of bionic hands”.Discussion should compare to studies produced by other authors.
Response 3: We truly appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions and comments. We completely agree with the comment made by the reviewer. We have significantly revised the paper. The main parameters that were taken into account during the design were added in the introduction. Section 2 presents a brief analysis of the main directions of the development of robotic manipulator designs, comparing its parameters with the prototype presented in the paper. The features of control systems used in robotics and prosthetics were added in section 3. The results of modeling and testing of the developed prototype are presented in Section 3.1 and added to section 4.
Point 4: Insert the limitations in the discussion.
Response 4: We truly appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions and comments. We completely agree with the comment made by the reviewer. We have significantly revised the paper. Now the document is structured as follows: The main parameters that were taken into account during the design were added in the introduction. Section 2 presents a brief analysis of the main directions of the development of robotic manipulator designs, comparing its parameters with the prototype presented in the paper. Section 3 presents the methods and results of the development, manufacture and assembly of the design of the anthropomorphic robotic arm, data on the mass-dimensional parameters and properties of the mechanical design of the developed prototype of an anthropomorphic robotic arm. Also Section 3 presents the structure of automated and control systems, analysis and calculations of the power supply and control circuits of the robotic anthropomorphic arm. The obtained results are presented in Section 4.
Point 5: Insert a flowchart (afterapplying (2)) describing the design of the study.
Response 5: We truly appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions and comments. We completely agree with the comment made by the reviewer. We have significantly revised the paper. The flowchart with steps of the work was added in Introduction.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to thank the Authors for the numerous corrections and changes introduced. The manuscript has been significantly improved and I propose to accept it in present form.
Reviewer 3 Report
N/A
