Automotive Seat Comfort and Vibration Performance Evaluation in Dynamic Settings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

I just had the chance to read your work. I believe it is an interesting approach and a step ahead regarding automotive seat improvements.

I have the following suggestions:

* Section 2.1

• Why have you chosen pick-up truck seats? Did you follow any criteria?
• You mention multiple mechanical properties. It would be great to read a brief description of each one.
• In the caption of figure 1, you should mention what subfigures A, B  and C represent
• Table 1: is it possible to increase the horizontal displacement? It is really confusing to understand the topic of each column
• In line 86/87, you characterize overall seat cushion foam hardness and vibration. I am afraid that this information should be presented in the results section

* Section 2.2.1

• You should describe the inclusion criteria before presenting the participants' demographic summary
• In line 113, you refer to the history of MSDs in the past 7 days. How have you checked this criterion? MSDs are must be evaluated by a physician

* Section 2.2.2

• line 126: you say "per ergonomic guidelines". It would be better if you include one or more references to support the quote.
• line 131-133: this sentence must be re-written because you did not ask every parameter before and after each condition. For example, participants were able to indicate their preference after testing the 3 seats regarding preference.
• I did not understand why have you chosen a sedan and a SUV (and then, in the field, a chevy - section 2.3.2). 

* Section 2.2.4.1

• The information about the models (e.g. accelerometer) is repeated

* Section 2.3.1

• You should describe the inclusion criteria before presenting the participants' demographic summary

* Figure 4:

• why is the attenuation frequency referred in the graph while the reasonant frequency is not?
• The setence "In this graph..." should not appear in the caption. Instead it should be addressed in the text.

* Section 2.3.3.2:

• Which was the scale considered regarding the participats' perception of the vibration?

* Section 4.2

• The seat chosed as the "most comfortable" was the first to be tested? Have you studied this relationship? I wonder if participants could have been tired in the second test and even more tired during the third one.

Overall comments:

• Figures numbers do not match with the text
• It would be great if part of the references  could be more recent

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The research presented shows outstanding contributions in the field of comfort and habitability of automotive seats. Moreover, the results are relevant according to the results mentioned in the research. 

As mentioned in the conclusions, this research was presented at two conferences, one in 2020 and the other in 2021. Reviewing both papers, there is a remarkable similarity between the introduction, methodology used, and results obtained. The attached file contains the figures, tables and similar text underlined, apparently the same.

It would be necessary to explain in detail the following questions.

1. What is the new research presented in this publication?
2. What analyses were modified or carried out concerning the conferences presented?
3. What are the state-of-the-art findings regarding the reduction of seat vibrations? 
4. What is the difference between the experimental model presented in the lecture and the article to be published?
5. The results are the same in both parts. Could you please distinguish the difference between both publications and the paper you are proposing to publish in Applied Sciences?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment for our responses to the reviewer's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

An interesting work to understand the correlation between the (dis) comfort perception, vibration and foam properties. The manuscript is clearly written, the topic is interesting.

However, the results on discomfort are not sufficiently shown. The work evaluated self-reported localized body discomfort in the upper and lower back, shoulders, neck, ankles/feet, knees, thighs and tailbone. The authors should better explain the results obtained through the questionnaire.

The authors should report, for example using tables or graphs, how the discomfort was perceived in the different areas of the body and if the results showed more sensitive areas than others.

Additionally, Figure 5 is not mentioned in the text but only in the caption.

Author Response

Please see the attachment for our responses to the reviewer's comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

In my opinion the changes improved a lot the quality of the manuscript. Congratulations.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your positive comments on our manuscript! Your constructive comments were very helpful for us to improve our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have improved the work, and I agree with the explanation and improvements.

I would only request a final review of the typo and modify the appearance of figures 2 and 6, looking for a different way to show the same content, to avoid that the conference and the article contain the same format of those figures (Graphics).

Congratulations on the idea and on the results

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf