Next Article in Journal
The Use of Terrestrial and Maritime Autonomous Vehicles in Nonintrusive Object Inspection
Next Article in Special Issue
IMU-Based Classification of Locomotion Modes, Transitions, and Gait Phases with Convolutional Recurrent Neural Networks
Previous Article in Journal
An Improved IoT-Based System for Detecting the Number of People and Their Distribution in a Classroom
Previous Article in Special Issue
Robotic Biofeedback for Post-Stroke Gait Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Deep Learning-Based Energy Expenditure Estimation in Assisted and Non-Assisted Gait Using Inertial, EMG, and Heart Rate Wearable Sensors

Sensors 2022, 22(20), 7913; https://doi.org/10.3390/s22207913
by João M. Lopes 1,2, Joana Figueiredo 1,2,*, Pedro Fonseca 3, João J. Cerqueira 4, João P. Vilas-Boas 3,5 and Cristina P. Santos 1,2
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sensors 2022, 22(20), 7913; https://doi.org/10.3390/s22207913
Submission received: 13 September 2022 / Revised: 7 October 2022 / Accepted: 14 October 2022 / Published: 18 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sensorimotor and Cognitive Wearable Augmentation Devices)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

The article entitled “Deep learning-based energy expenditure estimation in assisted and non-assisted gait using inertial, EMG, and heart rate wearable sensors” deals with another way to calculate the energy which used in gait disabilities. It is a very interesting article and can contribute in the field.

The originality in the field is the deep learning approach. The quality of presentation is high and I think is an article which will easily read it from the scientific community. 

The main and crucial problem for me is that, the experimental procedure includes only walking with different speeds and that is very limited. P. Slade et al in their article, uses walking, climbing stairs and biking in their subjects. 

 

The other main issue, is the small number of participants (it is only 8). That causes a lack of “power” in analysis due to large standard errors. I suggest the authors to include more procedures to experiments and more participants.

 

Best

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The overall impression of the paper is mixed for me. Authors need to write clearly and clarify in many places. All comments are in the appendix.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have responded to my remarks. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have responded to my remarks and I have no other comments. 

Back to TopTop