The Automatization of the Gait Analysis by the Vicon Video System: A Pilot Study
, Elena Yaikova 5, Tatiana Baltina 6 and Oskar Sachenkov 2,7,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper must be improved. Some figures are unclear.
Author Response
The article was improved. Figures were edited.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Article title: The automatization of the gait analysis by the Vicon video system
# Overall statement or summary of the article:
The paper provides a detailed description of the methodology for automatization the method of the gait analysis for distributing data into groups with different characteristics. It could be helpful to speed up diagnosis of the patient's disease and start the treatment in the shortest possible time. The topic for this study is interesting and results are clearly presented; however, some major points are required before any progress.
# Because the number of people participating in the experiment was few, I recommend adding “A pilot study” to the title.
# Please add some of the most important quantitative results to the Abstract and conclusion.
# In section 1, the authors should clearly mention the weakness point of former works (identification of the gaps) and describe the novelties of the current investigation to justify us the paper deserves to be published in this journal. A comparative overview table that shows the key differences between the different previous methods and the proposed method should solve this point.
# Please note that the used equations need to be cited to references.
# The authors need to add a flowchart to explain thier algorithm before section 3.
# A comparison of the quantitative results with other studies will be so worth in the results section.
# The font size for the figures 7 and 8 is almost illegible and too small.
# Can you please add a section before the conclusion to discuss the usability of the proposed algorithm, strategies or recommendations to reduce uncertainties in the study? Discussion section should also contain what impacted the results, limitations and what is the future work if any.
Author Response
I very glad for your revision. Thanks to you we have opportunity to improve the quality of the article. I hope changes we made allow presenting the research clearly.
# Because the number of people participating in the experiment was few, I recommend adding “A pilot study” to the title.
The Title was changed.
# In section 1, the authors should clearly mention the weakness point of former works (identification of the gaps) and describe the novelties of the current investigation to justify us the paper deserves to be published in this journal. A comparative overview table that shows the key differences between the different previous methods and the proposed method should solve this point.
The Introduction and Results and Discussion sections were expanded.
# Please note that the used equations need to be cited to references.
Cites were added in the text.
# The authors need to add a flowchart to explain thier algorithm before section 3.
The algorithm for data processing pipeline was added.
# A comparison of the quantitative results with other studies will be so worth in the results section.
# The font size for the figures 7 and 8 is almost illegible and too small.
The Figures were revised.
# Can you please add a section before the conclusion to discuss the usability of the proposed algorithm, strategies or recommendations to reduce uncertainties in the study? Discussion section should also contain what impacted the results, limitations and what is the future work if any.
The Introduction and Results and Discussion sections were expanded. Limitations and future plans were added to the Conclusion.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
[Comment 1] Introduction
To provide clarity, please list the research questions into Section 1. Please relate the questions with the analysis section.
Providing some hypothesis that provides background on the researches would be necessary as well.
[Comment 2] Literature review and novelty
[Subcomment 2a] The authors must conduct a complete review of studies about gait analysis, then compare them with this study, in terms of the studied topic and the data collection techniques.
[Subcomment 2b] (lines 72-74) The novelty of the study is not stated clearly. Please compare similar studies with this study of the authors in a table, and provide more explanations to emphasize the novelty.
[Comment 3] Methodology
[Subcomment 3a] (Section 2.1) Please explain about the coverage degree of each camera, and mark the covered area by each camera into Figure 1.
[Subcomment 3b] (line 98) Why does the authors use respondents who imitate non-standard gait? I believe that a natural response from other respondents who must perform such movements without any imitation would be necessary. Did authors from previous studies also consider imitated movements as well? (Please refer such studies in the manuscript.)
[Subcomment 3c] (lines 103-110) I would be necessary for the authors to cite previous study while comparing how the data processing (the steps) were conducted in the previous studies and by the authors.
[Comment 4] Code
I suggest the authors upload their code into an online repository and share the link into the manuscript, to allow reproducibility by next researchers.
[Comment 5] Numerical experiments and results
[Subcomment 5a] (line 181) It is difficult to understand which data was meant by the authors. The authors mentioned that they had 6 respondents, with several cameras and several body points. Please state clearly which record/data is meant here.
[Subcomment 5b] (lines 232-234) I still could not understand what the groups represent. Please provide a clear description of each generated group, then explain and prove how such groups would not change when more data/respondents are considered. Any real usage example of such groups from other references would be useful.
[Comment 6] References
It is important to always cite related references when explaining about the used methods, e.g., the ones used in lines 174-175. The readers could refer them to obtain more understanding and understand the advantages/disadvantages of such methods. Please list references for other used methods as well.
[Comment 7] Clarity
[Subcomment 7a] (lines 156-158) Please provide an example.
[Subcomment 7b] (lines 187-193) Please list the data into a table for ease understanding.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
I very glad for your revision. Thanks to you we have opportunity to improve the quality of the article. I hope changes we made allow presenting the research clearly.
[Comment 1] Introduction
To provide clarity, please list the research questions into Section 1. Please relate the questions with the analysis section.
Providing some hypothesis that provides background on the researches would be necessary as well.
The Introduction was expanded.
[Comment 2] Literature review and novelty
[Subcomment 2a] The authors must conduct a complete review of studies about gait analysis, then compare them with this study, in terms of the studied topic and the data collection techniques.
The Introduction and Results and Discussion sections were expanded.
[Subcomment 2b] (lines 72-74) The novelty of the study is not stated clearly. Please compare similar studies with this study of the authors in a table, and provide more explanations to emphasize the novelty.
The Introduction and Results and Discussion sections were expanded.
[Comment 3] Methodology
[Subcomment 3a] (Section 2.1) Please explain about the coverage degree of each camera, and mark the covered area by each camera into Figure 1.
The coverage degree of each camera was added and Figure was revised.
[Subcomment 3b] (line 98) Why does the authors use respondents who imitate non-standard gait? I believe that a natural response from other respondents who must perform such movements without any imitation would be necessary. Did authors from previous studies also consider imitated movements as well? (Please refer such studies in the manuscript.)
It was done to increase the number of observations. We haven't found studies with gait imitation.
[Subcomment 3c] (lines 103-110) I would be necessary for the authors to cite previous study while comparing how the data processing (the steps) were conducted in the previous studies and by the authors.
The Introduction and Results and Discussion sections were expanded.
[Comment 4] Code
I suggest the authors upload their code into an online repository and share the link into the manuscript, to allow reproducibility by next researchers.
We will.
[Comment 5] Numerical experiments and results
[Subcomment 5a] (line 181) It is difficult to understand which data was meant by the authors. The authors mentioned that they had 6 respondents, with several cameras and several body points. Please state clearly which record/data is meant here.
The line was edited.
[Subcomment 5b] (lines 232-234) I still could not understand what the groups represent. Please provide a clear description of each generated group, then explain and prove how such groups would not change when more data/respondents are considered. Any real usage example of such groups from other references would be useful.
The Table 1 and explanations for cluster groups were added.
[Comment 6] References
It is important to always cite related references when explaining about the used methods, e.g., the ones used in lines 174-175. The readers could refer them to obtain more understanding and understand the advantages/disadvantages of such methods. Please list references for other used methods as well.
Theses is the parameter proposed by the authors.
[Comment 7] Clarity
[Subcomment 7a] (lines 156-158) Please provide an example.
The line was edited. No pathological groups were found in the research.
[Subcomment 7b] (lines 187-193) Please list the data into a table for ease understanding.
The Table was added.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
This version of the manuscript has been improved; however, the authors have not answered some asked questions. I recommend a revision to the second round to address some of my previous comments.
# Please add some of the most important quantitative results to the Abstract and conclusion.
# Please note that the used equations need to be cited to references.
Author Response
I very glad for your revision. I’m very sorry that haven't answered all notes in first round. And I hope changes I made answered completely.
# Please add some of the most important quantitative results to the Abstract and conclusion.
Abstract and Conclusion were expanded.
# Please note that the used equations need to be cited to references.
References were added
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors did some revisions, but did not appropriately response to my main comments. Please (1) revise the manuscript well when the authors agree with my comments or (2) provide clear explanatory statements when the authors did not agree with my comments (the authors could not just remove a statement without any explanations). My comments that were not appropriately addressed are:
[Comment 1] Introduction
To provide clarity, please list the research questions into Section 1. Please relate the questions with the analysis section.
[Comment 2] Literature review and novelty
Please compare similar studies with this study of the authors in a table, and provide more explanations to emphasize the novelty.
[Comment 3] Methodology
[Subcomment 3a] (Figure 1) Please mark the covered area by each camera (e.g., in a gray area).
[Subcomment 3b] (lines 107-109) Why does the authors use respondents who imitate non-standard gait? I believe that a natural response from other respondents who must perform such movements without any imitation would be necessary.
[Comment 4] Code (I keep this comment as a not for further checking.)
I suggest the authors upload their code into an online repository and share the link into the manuscript, to allow reproducibility by next researchers.
[Comment 5] Numerical experiments and results
[Subcomment 5a] (Table 1) Please explain and prove how such groups would not change when more data/respondents are considered.
[Subcomment 5b] (Table 1) Please provide any real usage example of such groups from other references.
Author Response
I very glad for your revision. I’m very sorry that haven't answered all notes in first round. And I hope changes I made answered completely.
[Comment 1] Introduction
To provide clarity, please list the research questions into Section 1. Please relate the questions with the analysis section.
The Introduction was expanded.
So, in major of articles the researchers face to analyze time-series of measured data and piecewise linear (usually constant) functions used for clusterization. The research is focused on convolution the time-series data to parameters vector using higher order polynomial interpolation. Such technique allows obtaining the classification of patients by kinematic parameters. And the approach allows segregate patients in cluster groups for the following diagnostics.
[Comment 2] Literature review and novelty
Please compare similar studies with this study of the authors in a table, and provide more explanations to emphasize the novelty.
The Introduction and Conclusion were expanded.
We haven’t use a table, but expanded Introduction. Additionally, a paragraph about clusterization experience (of other researchers) was added.
[Comment 3] Methodology
[Subcomment 3a] (Figure 1) Please mark the covered area by each camera (e.g., in a gray area).
The coverage area of cameras was added and Figure was revised.
The whole room was covered by cameras.
[Subcomment 3b] (lines 107-109) Why does the authors use respondents who imitate non-standard gait? I believe that a natural response from other respondents who must perform such movements without any imitation would be necessary.
It was done to increase the number of observations. The corresponding note was added to the article.
[Comment 4] Code (I keep this comment as a not for further checking.)
I suggest the authors upload their code into an online repository and share the link into the manuscript, to allow reproducibility by next researchers.
No comments
[Comment 5] Numerical experiments and results
[Subcomment 5a] (Table 1) Please explain and prove how such groups would not change when more data/respondents are considered.
The Results and Discussion was expanded. The corresponding note was added to the Results and Discussion.
[Subcomment 5b] (Table 1) Please provide any real usage example of such groups from other references.
The Results and Discussion was expanded. The corresponding note was added to the Results and Discussion.
We can’t be sure that groups would not change when more data/respondents are considered. Most likely they will. And the real usage is questionable without increasing the number of respondents. But the purpose of the research was in development clusterization with taking into account time series form. Conducted research shows results which can be used in further. But, and it’s more importantly, brought up a point of methods for processing time-series for clusterization. The article aimed to share the proposed method, and question: how time series should be transformed to variables for clusterization in the best way?
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for your revisions.
Author Response
Thank you a lot for revision the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
