Next Article in Journal
Risky-Driving-Image Recognition Based on Visual Attention Mechanism and Deep Learning
Next Article in Special Issue
An Adaptive Task-Related Component Analysis Method for SSVEP Recognition
Previous Article in Journal
SimpleTrack: Rethinking and Improving the JDE Approach for Multi-Object Tracking
Previous Article in Special Issue
Cortical Correlates of Increased Postural Task Difficulty in Young Adults: A Combined Pupillometry and EEG Study
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Characterizing and Removing Artifacts Using Dual-Layer EEG during Table Tennis

Sensors 2022, 22(15), 5867; https://doi.org/10.3390/s22155867
by Amanda Studnicki *, Ryan J. Downey and Daniel P. Ferris
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sensors 2022, 22(15), 5867; https://doi.org/10.3390/s22155867
Submission received: 1 July 2022 / Revised: 28 July 2022 / Accepted: 2 August 2022 / Published: 5 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances on EEG-Based Sensing and Imaging)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

"Characterizing and Removing Artifacts using Dual-Layer EEG during Table Tennis" is an interesting article. The purpose of this study was to characterize and identify strategies to remove artifacts in EEG data for a discrete, responsive, whole-body task such as table tennis. The authors compared individual scalp channels, noise-matched channels, neck muscle channels and accelerometer data from the head and body to determine the efficacy of different reference signals in capturing noise. They compared artifact removal methods with and without the use of the dual-layer noise electrodes. The authors found that the dual-layer approach does well to characterize motion artifact affecting scalp channels during a dynamic sport like table tennis.

There are few issues in the article that need to be addressed.

Materials and Methods

Dual-Layer Approach

In line 124 it is suggested to add more information about amplifier characteristics, gain, low cut filters, high filters, the impedance of electrodes, sampling frequency, etc.

References

A careful review of each of the references is suggested.

Line 578. The volume of the magazine is 00 ?

Line 584. The volume and pages are repeated

Line 610. The name and additional data of the journal do not exist.

Line 623. The name and additional data of the journal do not exist.

Line 640. The volume of the magazine is 00 ? 

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is nicely written and the topic is interesting. I have some comments as follows. 

(1) An objective performance (in numbers) can be reported in the abstract.

(2) Did the participants feel comfortable with the EEG headset during the match? If not, did it affect the result?

(3) Is there any comparison with other related methods?

Author Response

Please see attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.        This study investigates and removes artifacts of dual-layer EEG for non-locomotor paradigms. Few healthy subjects are invited to play table tennis.

2.        This study should concisely illustrate the artifacts removal by equations.

3.        Time window rejection should be concisely formulated by equations.

4.        Do all subjects reveal the same characteristics of artifacts?

5.        This study should illustrate that why neural data in the delta and theta range (< 7 Hz) may have motion artifact contamination?

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have addressed my comments.

Back to TopTop