Next Article in Journal
A Low-Cost Active Reflector for Interferometric Monitoring Based on Sentinel-1 SAR Images
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessment of Selected Spatio-Temporal Gait Parameters on Subjects with Pronated Foot Posture on the Basis of Measurements Using OptoGait. A Case-Control Study
Previous Article in Journal
Structural Damage Identification of Composite Rotors Based on Fully Connected Neural Networks and Convolutional Neural Networks
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

NT-FDS—A Noise Tolerant Fall Detection System Using Deep Learning on Wearable Devices

Sensors 2021, 21(6), 2006; https://doi.org/10.3390/s21062006
by Marvi Waheed, Hammad Afzal * and Khawir Mehmood
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sensors 2021, 21(6), 2006; https://doi.org/10.3390/s21062006
Submission received: 1 September 2020 / Revised: 12 October 2020 / Accepted: 13 October 2020 / Published: 12 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sensor Technology for Fall Prevention)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The comments made to the authors of the article can be found inside the document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very interesting study concerning the fall detection by using Deep Learning, simulating a scenario in which data are affected by noise. Noise has been simulated by introducing lacks of data in datasets.

Anyway, there are some issues, listed below, that need further investigations.

The paper can be considered for publication after major revision.

 

  • English needs to be revided throughout the whole manuscript;
  • The first part of the paper, in particular sections 2 and 3, are very heavy to read. Authors should make a big effort to summarize the sections to make reading more fluent;
  • Table 1 should propose a comparison between Fall Detection approaches. However, it describes only the vision based approach;
  • In Table 4 I suggest to introduce the number of each kind of participants also;
  • Please, explain better in the text the interpretation of Figures 7 and 9;
  • Why should this approach be better than the others in the literature? Authors should emphasize the effectiveness of the proposed procedure compared to the others.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors reviewed the article according to the reviewer's suggestions.

I consider the paper acceptable for publication.

However, the improvement of figures resolution is desirable, s well as a further check of the English.

Author Response

Comments by Reviewer: The authors reviewed the article according to the reviewer’s suggestions. I consider the paper acceptable for publication. However, the improvement of figures resolution is desirable, s well as a further check of the English.

Response: As suggested, the quality of figures has been improved by using high resolution pictures. Higher resolution images for Figures 1,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 are added.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop