The Influence Assessment of Artifact Subspace Reconstruction on the EEG Signal Characteristics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Reviewer’s Report on the manuscript entitled:

The Influence Assessment of Artifact Subspace Reconstruction on the EEG Signal Characteristics

 

The authors compared two automatic EEG signal quality correction approaches based on ICA method and based on ASR+ICA. The topic and results are interesting, but the presentation can be improved. The results and conclusions require further work as well. Please see below my comments.

 

 

Line 13. Please replace “widespread way” with “effective way” or “popular way”

Lines 18 and 19. “The ASR…”, please always add “The” when a sentence starts with an abbreviation.

Line 20. Please remove “In our article”

Line 25. Please replace “Our results lead to the conclusion” with “The results showed”

 

Lines 38 and 74. Please add  https://doi.org/10.3390/s19050987 which is a review article discussing various types of artifacts corrupting EEG signals.

 

Lines 59-52. Existing baseline in EEG signal also make it more difficult for feature extraction. Thus, baseline removal from EEG records is also important:

https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10010054

So please also include this recent reference in the Introduction.

 

Lines 80 and 85. You repeated the same thing. Please edit.

 

Line 155. Who are “Authors”?

 

Lines 203-209. Remove.

 

Figures 3 and 4. Please insert the x-axis label and unit. Is it Frequency (Hz)?

 

Is there any case (subject) where ASR-ICA results were significantly different than ICA results? Can you expand the experiment?  What about using DEAP or SEED datasets?

 

 

Please write the limitations of the study and provide future direction in the conclusion part as well.

 

Regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript was improved substantially and can be published in the journal, please put the explanation of the PSD of the occipital region in Figure 4.3, it is essential for people who are starting in the research field.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable remark. We have added the explanation supplemented with citations, please see lines 344-347.

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the authors for addressing my comments. There are several typos/style/grammar issues to be fixed before publication which I listed some below:

 

Line 13. Grammar issue. Please replace "a effective way" with "effective ways"

Line 124. k parameter (lower case letter) has a different font than the one in equation (1) (upper case letter and italic). Also please replace "(eq. 1)" with "given by"

Line 128. Style issue. Please replace "Independent" with "independent" (lower case letter). Please check elsewhere for similar issues.

Line 150. Does this k refer to Equation (1)? If yes, then please say so. Please check its style as well. Is it capital italic letter like K or lower case like k?

Line 153. Please insert a comma after "In literature" and after "In [30]". Please check and insert comma elsewhere in the manuscript.

Lines 240, 245, 433, 435, etc. Please insert "The" when you start a sentence with an abbreviation. So here "The ICA", "The ASR" etc.

Line 279. What is ICLabel? Please define the acronyms.

 

Finally, please carefully proofread the manuscript

 

Thank you!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx