Numerical Study of Tympanosclerosis Including Its Effect on Human Hearing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this work, authors present a 3D finite element model of the ear that comprise the external auditory canal, the eardrum, the ossicles, the tympanic cavity, six ligaments, two muscles, the incudomalleolar and incudostapedial joints and the cochlear fluid. Using this model, three cases or tympanosclerosis were simulated depending on the spread degree of the plaque: only in the eardrum, eardrum and malleus and eardrum and the three ossicles.

The paper is well written, structured and the results provide useful information about the biomechanical behavior of the middle ear. However, as a general comment, the authors should emphasize the validation of the model and the results should be further discussed. These points are reduced to a sentence at the beginning of the results section.

 

Some other comments:

 

2. Methods

 

Authors mention that the three levels of pressure were applied in the external auditory canal and refer to fig. 2. It is not clear where the pressure is applied in this figure. I guess that there is a surface of elements there, but this should be described.

 

The mesh size (number of nodes and elements) should be provided. In the same way the solution method adopted by the solver must be provided, Abaqus Standard means it was implicit? Frequency response analysis…

 

3. Results

“The numerical results were obtained by Chia et al. [28] and Gentil et al. [22]” What does this sentence mean? Please explain.

 

The difference between the results of Figs. 4,5,6, 8,9,10 and the results showed in Fig. 12 should be explained. I understand that the results from the first ones where obtained by a standard frequency response analysis with a unit amplitude sinusoidal signal? 

Author Response

We are grateful to the Reviewers for their comments and suggestions to help improve our work.

Please note that the changes that we have made are highlighted in the revised version.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This work analyzed from a computational point of view the effects of different stages of tympanosclerosis affecting the human ear on perceived frequencies and phases.

The work is well written and conclusions are supported by the obtained outcomes.

I have some improvements to suggest:

1)     First lines of “methods”: I would better introduce which “the visible ear” project is since as it is described now, it does not add any useful information to the work (also, the comma after work should be removed);

2)     “methods”: I would explain in a more complete way the materials that were used to model the different parts of the ear. Are they linear elastic? Which is the rationale for this choice? I would add more details about the model itself;

3)     Referring to Table 1, which are the references for those values? The same for table 2;

4)     Why those values of Raleigh damping were adopted?

5)     No information about the mesh size and the number of elements has been reported. I would add some details;

6)     Sometimes it seems that a different font size has been used;

7)     There is one “fibber” instead of fiber within the introduction part.

8)     Sometimes the units of measure are reported immediately after the numbers, without space, sometimes they have space. Please, choose one style;

9)     In the tables, instead of a blank cell, I would put [-] or N.A. or similar;

10)  Figure 7 and after: to me these values of the phase angle are quite confusing (until -500 °C). If there is a reason why angles are reported as “-400°” and so on, please explain why.

 

11)  “discussion and conclusions”: I would enrich this paragraph since it seems too short and hurried. The authors could discuss the results and the comparison with the clinical evidence in a more accurate way, in my opinion.

Author Response

We are grateful to the Reviewers for their comments and suggestions to help improve our work.

Please note that the changes that we have made are highlighted in the revised version.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I'd consider to delete the last sentence of the first paragraph in the results section. These references have been introduced in the first sentence and now the validation of the model is clear for the reader.  

Author Response

We appreciate the contribution made by the reviewer to make our work better and publicable.

The last sentence of the first paragraph in the results section, was deleted.

Reviewer 2 Report

I agree with the authors' replies.

Author Response

We appreciate the contribution made by the reviewer to make our paper better and publicable.