Model-Free Tracking Control with Prescribed Performance for a Shape Memory Alloy-Based Robotic Hand
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The experimental result is focused on the steady-state and tracking error performance. The motion response time of the system need to be improved. About 5 second response time seems to slow for the hand movement. The proposed controller has merits compared to the PID and NMFAC, but it is not the dramatic improvements.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- The chapter for the introduction should be improved. (1) Authors described the SMA-based robotic hands, but I cannot understand why SMA should be applied for the hand. (2) I think that it is necessary for related works to be explained with more detailed and constructed description. Then, authors should make clear what were limitations of conventional works.
- In the chapter of preliminaries (I think the title should be changed), the experimental system authors described was not enough easy to match many math. Authors should show the relation between the system and the math, especially many parameters. I cannot understand what was the connection and which parameters were from, etc.
- In the chapter of control method design, (1) I think that you need to use the diagram for easy description. (2) Authors just added two different theories. I think that there are lacks of originalities.
- In the chapter of experiment, (1) I cannot find the initial input, output, and the middle staged results with you described equations. (2) I cannot understand why we should use your proposed method because simple PID results looked similar. (3) It is so difficult to understand the experimental condition and results. Authors should explain your results with some pictures to describe the motion of experimental system.
- Minor: Sometimes, I found the spelling missing. Please check the English Spellings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper has a significant number grammatical and spelling errors that will need to be corrected before acceptance.
The use of smart material in robotic engineering is interesting but the practicality of using such components is limiting, this needs to be added into the paper for a balanced argument.
The focus of the testing is very limited.. a real-world evaluation of the hand would have been more interesting and significant than a lab test of the tracking accuracy. i.e - accuracy is only useful if the hand has real-world applications - strength, durability, flexibility, ect.
Instead of a very long introduction, it would be beneficial for the reader to have a few smaller sections that compose a short literature review. There are similar robotic hands to yours and it is important to know what components are different and the benefits and drawbacks of your design - material - approach.
Diagrams could be represented more clearly, i.e label the components of the hand. - as we can all see that it is a robotic hand, but what are the novel parts?
References are appropriate and up-to-date with the field.
Conclusion should include limitations - design - control ect as this is missing important information.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is much improved but there are still a couple of areas that need further consideration.
The paper would benefit from further detail regarding the application of the robotic hand, maybe this can be done in a future work section after the conclusion?
Spelling and grammar are still a significant issue, although I appreciate that this can be easily corrected using language services.
The figure labels are clear and appropriate.
More practical testing would be beneficial to improving this research, although I understand that under the current conditions this may not be possible.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
