Unjumbling Procedure in the Algorithmic Analysis of Biomechanical Torques Induced by Electrical Stimulation: Case Study of the Lower Limb
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript “Unjumbling Procedure in the Algorithmic Analysis of Biomechanical Torques Induced by Electrical Stimulation: Case Study of the Lower Limb” reported by Matthew et al. proposed a theoretical analysis of knee joint torques arising when quadriceps are subjected to electrical stimulation. The software and method proposed are well known and seem correct to me for consideration. However, some open points need to be discussed to improve the quality of the manuscript. Comments are attached below:
- Several statements in the introduction need to be cited from original articles. Such as:
The technique of Functional….by a stimulator.
Joint torques…..isokinetic dynamometry.
When the isokinetic dynamometer….torque-time data.
An experiment was…..Gentz & Moore (1988), etc. Authors are suggested to improve the state of the art.
- There are dispersed typos and grammatical errors, that need to be rectified before consideration.
- Authors are suggested to show the ramp peak, P1, P2, P3, and PP in the Fig from the reader’s point of view.
- Can the author justify the use of the moment arm at 60 degrees flexion?
- Picture quality needs to be improved.
- Authors are suggested to discuss Fig. 6,7, 8, and 9 briefly in the manuscript, it seems like a lack of information.
- The author has used Fig. 13 twice; Fig. 12 is missing.
- The r square value for Fig.13 (Fig. 12) and Fig. 13 is not good, can authors justify the reason.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The structure of the article is good, but you should reformulate the conclusions. First is an excessively big paragraph with a lot of sentences. The conclusions should be short and precisely, and easy to be follow.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
To congratulate the authors for this research study, this had two objectives:
(1) Present a novel algorithmic method that can be used by researchers to process data from isometric dynamometry experiments.
(2) To infer some conclusions about the effect of changing ON and OFF time (duty cycle), when quadriceps is subjected to stimulation; with the main effect variable being the KJT that arises as a result of stimulation.
Comments and suggestions to the authors:
1º The abstract should present information from all sections of the manuscript. In the current format, only the introduction, comments on aspects of the methodology, results and conclusions obtained are included.
2º Includes the keyword "Functional Electrical Stimulation".
3º Revise and correct the way of referencing in the text: "Therefore, stimulation allows muscle exercise to occur when it would otherwise not be possible [1] - [2]" to "Therefore, stimulation allows muscle exercise to occur when it would otherwise not be possible [1, 2]."
4º In addition, they should justify the relevance and importance of their study in the introduction section in a broader and extended manner, clinical implications, ...
5º They should make a more detailed description of the participant, since in a case study the description of the participant is a fundamental part of the study, they only indicate this description: "The volunteer for this work was a healthy male, age 25".
6º You could make a section presenting the case study, not as part of the introduction.
7º You must define and restructure the entire methodology section, we recommend that you follow the recommendations and checklist of (2013) CARE Checklist: https://www.care-statement.org/checklist.
8º At the end of this paragraph I believe there is missing information regarding a table or reference: “Seven auxiliary matrices were set up, each with six rows and two columns. In each matrix, there were two columns. The first had six of the seven numbers of the sequence 1-7, with one missing in each column (table 3). The second had a random number specified by RAND()”
9º They should resolve some incomplete issues within the methodology section: type of current used, current shape, pulse duration, frequency, application time, application procedure, type of electrodes, detailed description of the electric current working cycles. You could attach or include a figure regarding the placement and application of electrical stimulation.
10º All ethical considerations should be indicated in the methodology section.
11º Discussions should cover the key findings of the study: discuss any previous research related to the topic to place the novelty of the discovery in the appropriate context, discuss possible shortcomings and limitations in its interpretations, discuss its integration into the current understanding of the problem and how. This advances current views, speculates on the future direction of research, and freely postulates theories that could be tested in the future, completed, and reformulated.
12º Indicate in the discussion section the most important limitations of your study.
13º Eliminate your self-citations and use current and justifying references to the topic of study.
14º The number of bibliographic references is limited and they use references more than 15 years old (examples: 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 12, and 15). Introduce references that are current and that justify your topic of study.
15º The bibliographic reference 13 does not indicate the year of publication.
16º Bibliographic references should be indicated according to the journal's guidelines.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author has addressed all the raised concerns positively, hence I recommend its possible publication in Applied Sciences. Good luck
Reviewer 3 Report
Congratulations to the authors for the improvements made to the manuscript.
