Next Article in Journal
Wearable Device to Monitor Back Movements Using an Inductive Textile Sensor
Previous Article in Journal
High Definition 3D Map Creation Using GNSS/IMU/LiDAR Sensor Integration to Support Autonomous Vehicle Navigation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sensors
Volume 20
Issue 3
10.3390/s20030904
Review Report
sensors-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Review
Peer-Review Record

Multi-Channel Neural Recording Implants: A Review

Sensors 2020, 20(3), 904; https://doi.org/10.3390/s20030904
by Fereidoon Hashemi Noshahr 1,*, Morteza Nabavi 1 and Mohamad Sawan 1,2,3
Reviewer 1:
Telmo Pereira
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sensors 2020, 20(3), 904; https://doi.org/10.3390/s20030904
Submission received: 30 December 2019 / Revised: 23 January 2020 / Accepted: 4 February 2020 / Published: 7 February 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Biomedical Sensors)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present an elegant review on multi-channel neural recording Implants, addressing all the major aspects in a comprehensive approach. The paper reads well, is very well supported, requiring only minor spelling corrections. I congratulate the team for the good effort.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, authors provide a review of multi-channel neural recording implants. After presenting various neural-signal features, they investigate main available neural recording circuit and system architectures. Introduction is well written and structured, in general. It would be nice to see few lines about the motivation of providing review of multi-channel neural implants in the presence of previous works. why is it required and what significance will it have on future researchers. Some things provided are too general, for example, the explanation of analog to digital conversion. This can be read in any good text book. It would be better to provide explanation of analog to digital conversion in the context of neural recording implants. There are only 4 papers from 2017 onward. Authors are suggested to search again and include more recent papers. Other than these minor issues, paper seems fine. Best of luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I think the paper might be a good reference in the literature for those who would like to get a quick overview on Neural implants and bio sensors.

However I suggest to remove or modify the statement on line 36 where it states "Invasive technique are more desirable by most BMIs." To me this is wrong. Signals with non-invasive techniques such as EEG would be more favorable choice for the end users  however they have their own limitation for the obvious reasons mentioned in the manuscript.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop