Next Article in Journal
Prediction of Actual from Climatic Precipitation with Data Collected from Northern Poland: A Statistical Approach
Previous Article in Journal
Simultaneous Measurement of Strain and Temperature Distributions Using Optical Fibers with Different GeO2 and B2O3 Doping
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sensors
Volume 23
Issue 3
10.3390/s23031158
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
Article
Peer-Review Record

Comparison of Various Smoothness Metrics for Upper Limb Movements in Middle-Aged Healthy Subjects

Sensors 2023, 23(3), 1158; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23031158
by Nicolas Bayle 1,2,*, Mathieu Lempereur 3, Emilie Hutin 1,2, Damien Motavasseli 1,2, Olivier Remy-Neris 3,4, Jean-Michel Gracies 1,2 and Gwenaël Cornec 3,4
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sensors 2023, 23(3), 1158; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23031158
Submission received: 13 December 2022 / Revised: 4 January 2023 / Accepted: 17 January 2023 / Published: 19 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Biomedical Sensors)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this manuscript, comparison of various smoothness metrics for upper limb movements in healthy subjects was reported. The comparison is meaningful, and is interested for readers. However, there exist some problems in this manuscript.

1.        The format of the equation is not standard.

2.        The layout of Table 2 should be adjusted.

Therefore, I recommend it to be published after minor revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. I noticed there is a preprint of your manuscript on Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1431894/v1

2. Please prepare the manuscript carefully. Address 4 is missing.

3. In part discussion, the author claimed "This study reports for the first time, at our knowledge, the comparison of the main 249 smoothness measures from both temporal and frequency domains on different sets (with 250 or without pause) and types of actual point-to-point movements (forward and backward) 251 in healthy subjects." But is it really the case?

4. I didn't find any serious shortcomings in the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The idea of the paper is very intersecting, and I was very enthusiastic. Unfortunately, the manuscript has many shortcomings and needs to be improved. Among other things, the purpose of the study is to build normative values. I have not seen them. Please make it clear where they are. In addition, I have comments on the results section, which is not clear and understandable because the methods do not describe what is compared with what. Please, find detailed comments below.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors responded to all my comments. I do not have any further ones. I like the paper very much.

Back to TopTop