Strategy for Application of Support Object for Fall Prevention in the Elderly Based on Balance Recovery Characteristics
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Although I represent medical sciences (rehabilitation) I must pay tribute to You as authors. Very interesting and expressed in mathematical or technical manner research touching fundamental problem of seniors daily activity. Some suggestions of desirable corrections in attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear the reviewers,
We would like to thank you for peer-reviewing our paper and providing your valuable comments to improve our paper. Our responses to your comments are described below. Note that Red-colored sentences/phrases/words in our resubmitted paper show the revised parts. Also, the numbers of Figure, Table, Equation, and references in our response corresponds with numbers in the revised version.
Our response is written in the attachment. Please see the attachment.
Soichiro MATSUDA
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents an assessment tool in order to evaluate the support object for fall prevention. The reviewer understand the contibution is related to the quantitative (mathematical) design, optimisation and evaluation of the support object. The contribution is not well presented in the introduction of the paper and the litterature review should be improved. The authors should improve the litterature review and then explain more directly the contribution comprared to other research works. Anyway, the reviewer think the paper has enough scientific contribution to be publised as a communication in a journal, but some parts of the paper need more attention. Also, the paper is difficult to follow and difficult to read as written. A better integration of each section is needed.
1- line 83-84 p. 3: I will not read your chapter 2-4 in your ref [8,9]. The authors will need to remove this and explain in more detail what you have found in [8,9].
2- line 88: I don't understand what is Chapter 5.
3- lines 83-88 : to be rewritten in order to prensent the paper and the contribution, not section/chapter nor other research works.
4-In Fig, such as 2-3, you have noted in the title (a) 1... (b) 2... I don't understand why ?
5- line 112, p.4, for the cane (fig 3 (a) ), why the friction is not considered between floor and object ? Fig. 7 seems also to consider the floor with infinite friction.
6- section 2.2, it's not clear why you need to consider a friction cone between hand and support object. Usually, friction cone is used at the floor. Please, add some sentences at the beginning of 2.2 to explain this. Anyway, you should consider a joint at the hand-object with damper-spring model, not a friction. Fig 7 has no friction reprenseted at the hand-object and then reviewer do not understand section 2.2. Otherwise, your model should be better explained.
7- line 158, Fg is mainly due to gravity, meaning the center of mass (COM) cross gravity acceleration. If you add a force for the hand-arm toward the COM Fh, this should equlibrate the Force = 0, otherwise the person fall. It is not presented in Fig. 4 & 5. The model doesn't seem enough accurate since only force composent is considered. You should develop the model to a better understanding. Also, It's not clear why resultant force F is parallel to x.
8- Eq. (5) should be bettre explained. Why do you need a scalar ?
9-Please, remove all chapter... is it a paper previously rejected for a book or a conference proceedings ? Remove in all this paper any reference to previous published chapter and reference. Self-citation is not appropriate.
10- eq (6) need more detail, including all vector definition in a figure.
11- In Fig. 7, all forces need to be defined, as well as all vector.
12- In eq. (5) you should explain the component of each vector on a figure.
13- index S should be better defined in section 3.2.1. Is it a margin or an index (see line 336 p.10) ?
14- Table 2 is not enough detailled. Please, consider in your simulation methodology, more than one person. Should you add a age, heigh and mass mean / standard deviation to represent better a population ?
Author Response
Dear the reviewers,
We would like to thank you for peer-reviewing our paper and providing your valuable comments to improve our paper. Our responses to your comments are described below. Note that Red-colored sentences/phrases/words in our resubmitted paper show the revised parts. Also, the numbers of Figure, Table, Equation, and references in our response corresponds with numbers in the revised version.
Our response is written in the attachment. Please see the attachment.
Soichiro MATSUDA
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Number of Elderly healthcare systems are rapidly increasing to cope with the problems due to aging society. Owing to increased elderly population, the researchers are interested to develop an efficient approach to assist elder people to avoid fall. In this paper, the authors propose a strategy for applying support objects—equipment, tools, and even furniture/environment from which humans can receive reaction force through their hands—for fall prevention in the elderly. The strategy for the application of support objects utilizing the evaluation indices is proposed; better usage of support objects, their locations, new-shaped ones, and support devices with a new design concept are discussed and introduced based on the values of the calculated indices according to the type/usage of the support objects. The authors have treated the topic superficially.
The specific comments are mentioned as follows:
Specific Comments:
- There are several typos and grammatical mistakes throughout the draft. For example; "Equations (1)–(4) are called friction cones [10] and show the directional characteristics of the reaction force received from support objects."
“In addition, the moment when the inverted pendulum model begins to collapse and the fall occurs unless the reaction force from the support object is obtained was defined as the moment when the balance is about to be lost.”
“In [9], first, dynamic simulation using an analytical model to which a dynamic pair was applied was conducted to obtain evaluation indices to determine the distance between the toes and cane tip.”
2. The authors have repeatedly used word “chapter” instead of “section.” Therefore, they are suggested to correct the word.
3. What does mean by dynamic simulation in the paper?
4. Several acronyms are used in the paper without proper definitions. For-example: DPx, DPq, the Link DP, etc.
5. The presentation of the paper is poor. It is difficult to understand the basic concept of the paper. Therefore, the authors are suggested to rewrite the paper.
6. Limitations of the proposed approach is not clearly stated. The authors are suggested to include the limitations.
7. The conclusion section of paper needs clarification. Therefore, the authors are suggested to re-write the section.
Author Response
Dear the reviewers,
We would like to thank you for peer-reviewing our paper and providing your valuable comments to improve our paper. Our responses to your comments are described below. Note that Red-colored sentences/phrases/words in our resubmitted paper show the revised parts. Also, the numbers of Figure, Table, Equation, and references in our response corresponds with numbers in the revised version.
Our response is written in the attachment. Please see the attachment.
Soichiro MATSUDA
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present some improvements of the paper. Please, consider these points:
Index S is very important to understand the results. I don't understand why you cite [8] to define S. I will not read [8], then S is not enough defined in the paper. S=? exactly for each case. You should present S in one equation.
The Jacobian J is not well defined. I understand the Jacobian should consider some constraints, but still you need to define mathematically what is J. You cannot state J is J. J=? exactly. As a serial structure hand-object, J is not diagnonal. Then, what is J. Present J in one equation.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
We would like to thank you for re-peer-reviewing our paper and providing your valuable comments to improve our paper. Our responses to your comments are described in the attached file. Note that Red-colored sentences/phrases/words in our resubmitted paper show the revised parts. Also, the numbers of Figure, Table, Equation, and references in our response correspond to the numbers in the revised version.
Best regards,
Soichiro MATSUDA
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed all the comments given in first round of review.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
We would like to thank you for re-peer-reviewing our paper and providing your valuable comments to improve our paper. Our responses to your comments are described in the attached file. Note that Red-colored sentences/phrases/words in our resubmitted paper show the revised parts. Also, the numbers of Figure, Table, Equation, and references in our response correspond to the numbers in the revised version.
Best regards,
Soichiro MATSUDA
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
