Multi-Mode Compound Grasping Robot Finger Driven by Linkage
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Interesting research about a mechanical avatar of human fingers, and the work is assembled into a decently drafted manuscript that needs some mild revisions.
· The manuscript is clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner. The cited references are pretty old (some few, less than 10% within the last 5 years), while suggested very recently published references are suggested in review to aid revision. The manuscript is scientifically sound, and the experimental design is appropriate to test the hypothesis. The manuscript’s results are reproducible based on the details given in the methods section. The figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate and properly show the data. They are easy to interpret and understand. The data is interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.
The Abstract is okay but is not likely to entice the readership to continue reading the rest of the manuscript.
· Use of acronyms/abbreviations in an abstract is unlikely to attract readers not already aware of the manuscript’s content.
· Results are only presented in a weak, qualitative fashion. Highest quality expression of main conclusions or interpretations is quantitative results discussed in the broadest context possible, e.g., percent performance improvement compared to a declared benchmark. “…hand is suitable for applications…” is very weakly stated results compared to “…xxx percent performance improvement over conventional methods was achieved….”
The Introduction is decently done with some omitted very recent literature and some mild abuse of multi-citation without elaboration (10 double-citations and 3 triple citations), but no self-citation.
· Please elaborate for the reader the definitions (e.g. Utah/MIT hand, DLR, Goldfingure (misspelled?), GIFU, 2-F robotic gripper, etc.), so the readers isn’t forced to look up the cited reference merely to ascertain the meaning of the terminology used in this reviewed manuscript.
· Please elaborate a reason for the reader to investigate each of the triple cited references [13–15] in the introduction.
· Please elaborate a reason for the reader to investigate each of the triple cited references [22–24] in the introduction.
· Please elaborate a reason for the reader to investigate each of the triple cited references [31–33] in the introduction.
Equations are scientifically sound and well presented, enhancing the manuscript quality.
Figures are really well done with some mandatory improvements to ensure the readership has access to the content.
· Internal font size is occasionally too small. Please notice the smallest font size permissible in the manuscript template (to ensure legibility by the reader) is the figure caption which provides a conveniently proximal prototype for sizing figures, e.g. figure 10, 12–14.
Tables are decently done to introduce problem formation (aiding repeatability), but quantitative results are neglected.
· For such a manuscript, heavy in acronym and variable usage, please add period tables of proximal definitions, so the readership is not required to flip back and forth between pages to remind themselves of acronym and variable definitions.
· Inclusion of a table defining variables and acronyms in an appendix is welcome and effective. Please add such.
Conclusions need improvement (even the section title is misspelled)
· Deficiencies of existing designs are claimed in the conclusions, but not succinctly presented anywhere else in the manuscript, while limited grasping and limited range of motion are mentioned in the verbiage.
· No recommendations for future research are offered. The PS-M&D-SA grasping mode seems highly relevant to space robotics. Robot “whiplash compensation” whose provenance lies in optimization seems to be a logical recommendation, while “deterministic artificial intelligence” is another particularly applicable to avoid underactuated systems.
Recommend activating grammar and spelling check in template to easily amplify issues.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1
Point 1: The manuscript is clear, relevant to the field, and presented in a well-structured manner. The cited references are old (some few, less than 10% within the last 5 years), while very recently published references are suggested in the review to aid revision.
Response 1: Great to hear that the manuscript is clear and well-structured. Thank you for your suggestion to include more recently published references. We have revised the reference list to include multiple new references and have appropriately reduced the use of older references. However, we would like to note that some of the older references are classic examples in robot hand research, and we believe that they are still relevant to the discussion. Nonetheless, we have made sure to balance the use of old and new references in the revised manuscript. Thank you for your feedback.
Point 2: The manuscript is scientifically sound, and the experimental design is appropriate to test the hypothesis. The manuscript’s results are reproducible based on the details given in the methods section. The figures/tables/images/schemes are appropriate and properly show the data. They are easy to interpret and understand. The data is interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.
Response 2: Thank you for your valuable feedback and constructive comments. We are pleased to hear that you found our manuscript scientifically sound and the experimental design appropriate for testing our hypothesis. We are also glad that you found the figures, tables, images, and schemes easy to interpret and that the data interpretation was appropriate and consistent throughout the manuscript. Knowing that our conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented is encouraging. Your feedback has been instrumental in helping us improve the manuscript, and we have carefully considered your comments in our revisions.
Point 4: The Abstract is okay but is not likely to entice the readership to continue reading the rest of the manuscript. Use of acronyms/abbreviations in an abstract is unlikely to attract readers not already aware of the manuscript’s content.
Response 4: We have updated the Abstract to make it more appealing and informative for the readers. We have minimized the use of acronyms and added quantitative results to provide a clearer view of the improvements achieved by our proposed MCG finger design.
Here is the updated version of abstract:
The current underactuated robot hands use a single actuator to drive multiple degrees of freedom, enabling them to perform grasping functions. This paper design a multi-mode compound grasping robot finger driven by linkage, called MCG hand. The MCG hand includes a base, two motors, three phalanx, multiple shafts, two motors, two driving wheels, four linkages, three springs, and two limit blocks. This unique design allows the MCG finger to perform various grasping modes, such as parallel, coupling, middle and distal phalanx self-adaptive, proximal and distal gesture-changeable modes, as well as their combinations. The device can independently control the rotation of the proximal phalanx and the distal joint and realize the parallel pinching action of the distal phalanx. It can also realize the coupling function of the proximal and distal phalanx. It has automatic adaptability to objects of different shapes and sizes. Furthermore, the MCG finger provides enveloping grasping with multiple contact points, resulting in a more stable grip. The easy switching between modes through simple control, along with its wide application range and low manufacturing and maintenance costs, make the MCG hand a versatile solution for various applications.
Point 5: Results are only presented in a weak, qualitative fashion. Highest quality expression of main conclusions or interpretations is quantitative results discussed in the broadest context possible, e.g., percent performance improvement compared to a declared benchmark. “…hand is suitable for applications…” is very weakly stated results compared to “…xxx percent performance improvement over conventional methods was achieved….”
Response 5: Thank you for your feedback on the presentation of our results. We acknowledge the importance of quantitative results but in this manuscript, we focused on the innovation of design concepts and presented the results qualitatively through photographs showcasing the MCG finger's capability to perform various grasping modes and their combinations. Our aim was to demonstrate the feasibility of achieving the required movements and actions with the MCG finger. While we understand the need for quantitative results, we believe that the visual evidence of the MCG finger's potential for a broad range of applications is valuable. In future work, we plan to conduct a more in-depth quantitative analysis to assess the performance improvement provided by the MCG finger over traditional underactuated robot hands.
We would also like to clarify that this manuscript presents an invention of a device with a simple structure and free grasping, with a focus on studying theoretical results. The witness function is something we understand and plan to further study in future work. While the experimental data is more represented by simulation to demonstrate crawling performance, we demonstrated the grasping experiments in the text as it is an important starting point to showcase the MCG finger's potential function. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.
Point 6: The Introduction is decently done with some omitted very recent literature and some mild abuse of multi-citation without elaboration (10 double-citations and 3 triple citations), but no self-citation.
Please elaborate for the reader the definitions (e.g. Utah/MIT hand, DLR, Goldfingure (misspelled?), GIFU, 2-F robotic gripper, etc.), so the readers isn’t forced to look up the cited reference merely to ascertain the meaning of the terminology used in this reviewed manuscript.
Response 6: This really makes sense. The manuscript is modified based on your opinion.
Humanoid dexterous hands, which can perform various grasping and manipulation tasks, often require a separate motor for each joint, resulting in significant challenges related to sensing, control, and high costs. The intricate design of dexterous hands, such as the Utah/MIT hand with degrees of freedom [3], the delicate and precise DLR hand [4,5], the non-anthropomorphic Goldfinger [6], and the highly versatile GIFU hand [7,8], can make them difficult to design, build, and maintain. The challenges in controlling dexterous hands are exemplified by studies that address the need for optimization techniques for motion control trajectories [9] and the development of dynamic simulators to facilitate dexterous manipulations [10], highlighting the sophisticated sensing and control algorithms required to coordinate movements effectively.
Point 7: Please elaborate a reason for the reader to investigate each of the triple-cited references [13–15] in the introduction.
Response 7: The modified parts are shown below.
Laliberte et al. [13] provides a comprehensive overview of under-actuation in robotic grasping hands, Ma et al. [14] discuss the use of underactuated hands for robust, whole-hand caging manipulation, and Dollar and Howe [15] present a study on joint coupling design for underactuated grippers.
Point 8: Please elaborate a reason for the reader to investigate each of the triple-cited references [22–24] in the introduction.
Response 8: The self-adaptive grasping mode benefits from synchronized finger and wrist movements, which can improve grasp success rates and mitigate object slippage during hand closure [19]. This can also be achieved by using soft materials [20], and pneumatic or hydraulic actuation [21]. The soft–rigid tendon-driven grippers investigated in [22], allow robots to grasp objects of various shapes and sizes with minimal input from the control system. These adaptive mechanisms have shown promise for improving grasp stability and versatility [23].
Point 9: Please elaborate a reason for the reader to investigate each of the triple-cited references [31–33] in the introduction.
Response 9: Luo and Zhang [33] present the VGS Hand, a novel hybrid grasping mode robot hand with a variable geometrical structure, Yang et al. [34] introduce a parallel and self-adaptive underactuated finger with the novel belt and cam-link mechanisms. The Velo gripper [35] demonstrated the ability to perform parallel, enveloping, and fingertip grasps using single active tendon actuation and passive adaptation for increased versatility.
Point 10: Equations are scientifically sound and well presented, enhancing the manuscript quality.
The figures are really well done with some mandatory improvements to ensure the readership has access to the content.
Response 10: Great to hear that the equations are scientifically sound and well presented. We took great care to derive the equations rigorously to obtain more realistic simulation results. We also appreciate your positive feedback on the figures in the manuscript. Our aim was to help the readership better understand the content of the article. We have taken note of your suggestion for mandatory improvements to ensure that the figures are presented in the best possible way. Thank you for your valuable feedback, and we have made revisions to ensure the manuscript's quality.
Point 11: Tables are decently done to introduce problem formation (aiding repeatability), but quantitative results are neglected.
Response 11: Thank you for your feedback on the tables in our manuscript. We acknowledge that the tables were primarily intended to introduce the problem formation and assist in understanding the experiments' setup. However, the main focus of this article is to propose a new device that combines the gripping characteristics of multiple gripping modes, adopts dual motor drive, and conducts gripping experiments. The novelty and gripping function of the invention device are the main starting points of this article. We understand that quantitative results are important, but in this manuscript, we have focused more on the theoretical analysis and the potential of the device. Our aim was to showcase the invention of a new device with a simple structure and free grasping, and to demonstrate its potential function. We have taken note of your comments, and in future work, we plan to include more quantitative results. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.
Point 12: For such a manuscript, heavy in the acronym and variable usage, please add period tables of proximal definitions, so the readers are not required to flip back and forth between pages to remind themselves of acronym and variable definitions.
The inclusion of a table defining variables and acronyms in an appendix is welcome and effective. Please add such.
Response 12: This is a very good point. In the template, I find the “Abbreviations” section. So all abbreviations are expressed in this section.
Point 13: Conclusions need improvement (even the section title is misspelled)
Deficiencies of existing designs are claimed in the conclusions, but not succinctly presented anywhere else in the manuscript, while limited grasping and limited range of motion are mentioned in the verbiage.
Response 13: The spelling is modified in the manuscript. The conclusion is modified as follows:
The multi-mode compound grasping robot finger driven by linkage (MCG finger) is an innovative underactuated robot finger design that aims to address the challenges associated with dexterous hands, such as complex control systems and high costs. This paper proposes a new approach to robot finger design that integrates the flexibility of dexterous fingers with the simplicity of underactuated fingers. By adding a second actuator, the MCG finger is able to perform a variety of grasping modes, which makes it suitable for a wide range of applications.
The MCG finger has partially deviated from traditional underactuated hand design and is biased towards dexterous hand design. This means that it is able to offer the flexibility of a dexterous hand, while still maintaining the simplicity of an underactuated mechanism. This is an important advantage of the MCG finger over other designs.
The paper introduces six grasping modes of the MCG finger and explains the structure and action modes of the finger. Theoretical analysis and prototype experiments are conducted to demonstrate the high grasping stability of the MCG finger under appropriate parameters.
In conclusion, the MCG finger represents a promising advancement in robotic finger design, providing a fresh approach to addressing the challenges associated with dexterous hands. With its range of grasping modes and the simplicity of its mechanism, the MCG finger lays the groundwork for future research into its potential applications and capabilities in numerous scientific and industrial settings.
Point 14: No recommendations for future research are offered. The PS-M&D-SA grasping mode seems highly relevant to space robotics. Robot “whiplash compensation” whose provenance lies in optimization seems to be a logical recommendation, while “deterministic artificial intelligence” is another particularly applicable to avoid underactuated systems.
Response 14: Thank you for your recognition of our work. We appreciate your suggestions regarding future research directions. Exploring the application of our PS-M&D-SA grasping mode in space robotics, investigating robot "whiplash compensation" through optimization techniques, and considering "deterministic artificial intelligence" to address underactuated systems are indeed valuable avenues for extending our work. We will consider incorporating these recommendations in our future research and the discussion section of our paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is devoted to the development of a multi-mode composite gripping finger of the robot. The article provides a good overview and describes in detail the MSG finger, however, it is not enough described how the experiments were carried out, simulation modeling. Therefore, I have a few comments and questions for the authors, find them below:
1) It would be nice to add rotation arrows around the hinges to figures 1-5 and highlight the hinges that are used in a different color;
2) What does the scale on the left in figures 1-5 mean?
3) Figure 6. Very confusing numbering in the figures, confusing captions that refer not only to Figure 6, but also to Figures 7 and 8;
4) Figure 7. It is better to put the Figures a,b side by side;
5) line 243: "the coordinate system as shown in the figure." which Figure?
6) Line 322: According to the structure of the template in mdpi, "discussion" is a separate section, or it can be combined with conclusions into the "conclusions and discussion" section
7) The section "Prototype and experiments" needs to be described in more detail.
8) Line 126. "mode (shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5..." missing ")"
9) Line 144. "euqal length.." maybe equal?
10) Check please that "PA-M&D-SA" grasping mode is indicated the same everywhere. Line 125,126, maybe missing "&". Line 168 missing "M".
11) Line 195. "phanlax" misprint.
12) Add angle symbols in Figure 11. For example, between the y-axis and AB. Are you sure the angle between the y-axis and AE is theta1? Explain more specifically how formulas (1)-(4) are obtained?
13) Table 1, in the first line is the speed squared or is it a footnote? Where is the footnote "3" then? If state R&S (rotate and stop) then speed v & 0 respectively (it's more logical).
14) Please, use for speed everywhere same symbol ϑ or v
15) What is I in Figure 11? Maybe its l.
Correct all misprints
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
The article is devoted to the development of a multi-mode composite gripping finger of the robot. The article provides a good overview and describes in detail the MSG finger, however, it is not enough to describe how the experiments were carried out, simulation modeling. Therefore, I have a few comments and questions for the authors, find them below:
Point 1: It would be nice to add rotation arrows around the hinges to figures 1-5 and highlight the hinges that are used in a different color;
Response 1: We appreciate your suggestion to enhance the clarity of figures 1-5. While adding rotation arrows around the hinges and highlighting them in a different color might seem helpful, we found that due to the various grasping states, the rotation of the proximal, middle, and distal joint axes cannot be accurately depicted solely by direction. For instance, in the coupled grasping mode, the distal finger segment's rotation around the distal joint axis must be faster than the proximal finger segment's rotation around the proximal joint axis. This complexity cannot be conveyed solely through rotation arrows.
Point 2: What does the scale on the left in Figures 1-5 mean?
Response 1: This is illustrated in the caption of Figure 1. 1-Base; 2-Proximal shaft; 3-Proximal phalanx; 4-Middle shaft; 5-Middle phalanx; 6-Distal shaft; 7-Distal phalanx. All the numbers appearing in the following figures represent the same meaning respectively.
Sorry for the confusion part. The illustrations are shown in the caption of Figure 1.
Point 3: Figure 6. Very confusing numbering in the figures, confusing captions that refer not only to Figure 6, but also to Figures 7 and 8;
Response 3: These numbers all correspond to a part of the prototype. For example, in Figure 6 (a), 14 refers to the third shaft. This will help the reader understand the structure of the prototype.
The caption of Figure 7 is changed to oblique view (a) and main view (b) of the inner parts of the MCG finger.
Point 4: Figure 7. It is better to put Figures a,b side by side;
Response 4: Figures 7 (a) and (b) are adjusted to the same height and rearranged to side by side.
Point 5: Line 243: "the coordinate system as shown in the figure." which Figure?
Response 5: Than you very much for pointing out this typo. This should be Figure 11. The modified version is:
Take A as the origin, the horizontal direction is the x-axis, the vertical direction is the y-axis, and the vertical point A outward is the z-axis to establish the coordinate system as shown in figure 11. First, we need to obtain the parametric coordinates of the key points.
Point 6: Line 322: According to the structure of the template in mdpi, "discussion" is a separate section, or it can be combined with conclusions into the "conclusions and discussion" section
Response 6: We appreciate your suggestion to modify the section title. We have made changes to the section title as suggested and it is now titled "Analysis of the Simulation Results". We hope that this modification will clarify the section's purpose and make it easier for readers to understand the content.
Point 7: The section "Prototype and experiments" needs to be described in more detail.
Response 7: We appreciate your feedback regarding the "Prototype and Experiments" section. In this manuscript, we have primarily focused on the innovation of design concepts, showcasing the MCG finger's capability to perform various grasping modes and their combinations qualitatively through photographs. Our goal was to demonstrate the feasibility of achieving the required movements and actions with the MCG finger.
We acknowledge the importance of providing more detailed and quantitative results. In future work, we plan to conduct a more in-depth quantitative analysis to assess the performance improvements offered by the MCG finger compared to traditional underactuated robot hands. Additionally, we aim to further study the witness function and its impact on the system.
Although our current experimental data is primarily based on simulations to demonstrate crawling performance, we have included grasping experiments in the text to showcase the MCG finger's potential functionality. We will take your feedback into account as we continue to refine and expand upon our research. Thank you for your valuable input.
Point 8: Line 126. "mode (shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5..." missing ")"
Response 8: This error is modified in the manuscript.
Point 9: Line 144. "euqal length.." maybe equal?
Response 9: This error is modified in the manuscript.
Point 10: Check please that "PA-M&D-SA" grasping mode is indicated the same everywhere. Line 125,126, maybe missing "&". Line 168 missing "M".
Response 10: These errors are modified in the manuscript.
Point 11: Line 195. "phanlax" misprint.
Response 11: This error is modified in the manuscript.
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and corrections. We appreciate your attention to detail, as we understand that even small errors can seriously affect the quality of the paper. We will take your comments into account in future research and pay special attention to such issues to ensure that our manuscripts are of the highest quality. Once again, thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.
Point 12: Add angle symbols in Figure 11. For example, between the y-axis and AB. Are you sure the angle between the y-axis and AE is theta1? Explain more specifically how formulas (1)-(4) are obtained.
Response 12: Theta 1 is the angle of the first linkage concerning the base, which is the angle between AG and the negative direction of the x-axis.
The explanation of formulas (1) – (4) is added to the manuscript.
Point 13: Table 1, in the first line is the speed squared or is it a footnote? Where is the footnote "3" then? If state R&S (rotate and stop) then speed v & 0 respectively (it's more logical).
Response 13: We appreciate your suggestion to add a symbol to distinguish the footnote from the speed squared value in the first line. We have added an asterisk (*) symbol in front of the footnote to avoid confusion. Additionally, we have made changes to the footnotes from 1-3, and we have clearly stated them in the manuscript to avoid any confusion.
Regarding your suggestion for the state R&S (rotate and stop), we agree that it is more logical to represent the speeds v and 0 respectively. We have made revisions to the table to reflect this suggestion.
Point 14: Please, use for speed everywhere same symbol ϑ or v
Response 14: The “v”s in the manuscript are all changed to “v”.
Point 15: What is I in Figure 11? Maybe its l.
Response 15: This should be I, which is the inertia of each linkage or phalanx. Since the manuscript doesn’t present dynamic analysis, I doesn’t appear in the text. So all Is in Figure 11 have been deleted. Figure 11 is modified in the new manuscript.
We would like to express our sincere appreciation to you for taking the time to read our manuscript and providing us with valuable feedback and suggestions. Your comments have helped us to identify areas that need improvement, and we have made the necessary changes to the manuscript accordingly. We believe that your insights and suggestions have contributed significantly to the quality of our work, and we are grateful for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback, and we hope that our revised manuscript meets your expectations.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript designs a multi-mode compound grasping robot finger that enables the robot to stably complete grasping movements. The content of the manuscript is interesting, but it mainly elaborates on the structure and motion characteristics of this mechanism. The explanation of the mechanism control part is not sufficient to form a complete application architecture, and there is too little content in the experiment to prove the effectiveness of the proposed mechanical structure.
(1) The introduction fails to clearly summarize the problems in the traditional structure, and the motivation for the content of the manuscript study is unclear.
(2) The description of the manuscript's contribution in the introduction is too brief, making it difficult for the reader to understand the role of the study within the field of application.
(3) The description of the robot grasping model in the second part is too simple, only illustrating the different model configurations through diagrams, but not elaborating on their applicability conditions and implementation effects.
(4) The mechanical components indicated by the symbols in Figures 7 and 8 cannot be found in the corresponding figure captions, making it impossible for the reader to understand the content of the structure in the figures.
(5) The simulation part of the manuscript fails to conduct experiments on specific grasping cases, and the motor speed is designed in a fixed mode. How to ensure the consistency of the robot's grasping action with this motor speed design?
(6) The manuscript fails to clearly explain the judgment conditions for switching between various grasping models, and the design of the controller.
(7) The experimental part of the manuscript only provides pictures of the prototype, as for the process of applying the prototype and the related crawling data are not given, I think this part is incomplete.
(8) The flexibility of the proposed robot grasping mentioned in the conclusion is not proven by relevant data in the manuscript, and the potential of application in industrial manufacturing, hazardous environment operation, marine resource detection, etc. is not proven by specific cases. I believe that part of the conclusion cannot be found in the content with corresponding arguments.
The notation of some of the English abbreviations in the manuscript should be more standardized.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3
The manuscript designs a multi-mode compound grasping robot finger that enables the robot to stably complete grasping movements. The manuscript's content is interesting, but it mainly elaborates on this mechanism's structure and motion characteristics. The explanation of the mechanism control part is not sufficient to form a complete application architecture, and there is too little content in the experiment to prove the effectiveness of the proposed mechanical structure.
Point 1: The introduction fails to clearly summarize the problems in the traditional structure, and the motivation for the content of the manuscript study is unclear.
Response 1: In response to your feedback, we have added a clear and concise statement of the motivation for our study in the introduction section to improve the manuscript's clarity. We hope that this modification will help readers better understand the significance of our research.
The detailed content is:
Traditional robotic hands face challenges due to their complexity, sensing, control, and high costs. Underactuated fingers, such as parallel, coupling, and self-adaptive fingers, have been developed to address these limitations but still exhibit constraints in grasping capabilities.
Point 2: The description of the manuscript's contribution in the introduction is too brief, making it difficult for the reader to understand the role of the study within the field of application.
Response 2: The contribution of the manuscript is added.
The modified part is:
The MCG finger addresses the challenges faced by traditional dexterous hands by offering a versatile and adaptable solution with reduced complexity and cost.
The importance of selecting the appropriate gripper for a robotic manipulator, as it directly influences the efficiency and performance of the system, is emphasized by the comprehensive review of various gripper classifications and their applications provided in the work of \cite{briefreview}. This paper presents the design concept, working principle, and concrete structure, as well as dynamic and kinematic analyses of the MCG finger \cite{handbook_robotics}, making a contribution to the field by offering a novel and efficient solution for robotic grasping.
Point 3: The description of the robot grasping model in the second part is too simple, only illustrating the different model configurations through diagrams, but not elaborating on their applicability conditions and implementation effects.
Response 3: Thank you for your feedback. We have carefully revised the text according to your suggestions and made the following key modifications to address your concerns:
- We have expanded the descriptions of each grasping mode to include their applicability conditions, making it clear when each mode is advantageous and suitable for specific object shapes and geometries.
- Added information on the implementation effects of each grasping mode, highlighting the benefits and unique gripping mechanisms that enable the MCG finger to adapt and securely grip various objects.
Point 4: The mechanical components indicated by the symbols in Figures 7 and 8 cannot be found in the corresponding figure captions, making it impossible for the reader to understand the content of the structure in the figures.
Response 4: The caption is shown in the caption of Figure. To avoid confusion, we add a description in the caption of Figure 6. The details are shown below:
All the numbers appearing in the following figures represent the same meaning respectively.
Point 5: The simulation part of the manuscript fails to conduct experiments on specific grasping cases, and the motor speed is designed in a fixed mode. How to ensure the consistency of the robot's grasping action with this motor speed design?
Response 5: Thank you for raising this concern. Our design utilizes a block spring linkage system to achieve the desired grasping patterns through a combination of fixed speeds. We acknowledge that driving the first and second motors at different speeds can cause interference problems. However, the block spring linkage system effectively addresses these issues, improving the switching stability between different modes. By employing this system, we can ensure the consistency of the robot's grasping action with the fixed motor speed design.
Point 6: The manuscript fails to clearly explain the judgment conditions for switching between various grasping models, and the design of the controller.
Response 6: Thank you for your feedback. I understand that the explanation of the judgment conditions for switching between various grasping models may not have been clear enough. Here is a revised explanation to address this concern, which is modified in the manuscript:
In order to effectively switch between different grasping modes, the MCG finger relies on the contact conditions with the object and the desired outcome during the grasping process. For active modes (PA, CO, P-GC, and D-GC grasping modes), the MCG finger proactively adjusts its position and movement based on predefined commands, which are determined by the object's shape and the desired grip. On the other hand, the passive modes (M-SA and D-SA) are activated in response to contact with the object, allowing the finger to adapt to the object's shape for a more stable and secure grip. The contact points and the sequence in which the phalanges interact with the object determine the appropriate grasping mode. As the MCG finger encounters an object, the contact conditions are evaluated in real-time, allowing the system to adapt and choose the most suitable grasping mode.
In terms of control methods, the MCG finger's circuit can be managed by regulating the series connection of the power supply. While there may be errors due to the internal resistance of the power supply, the designed grasping modes can still be effectively achieved within the range of MCG finger movement. For various grasping modes, different output speeds can be assigned to the two motors, allowing for a straightforward control approach. The primary focus of this article is to present a novel device with a simple structure capable of versatile grasping. Therefore, the emphasis lies on the theoretical analysis and the invention of the new device, rather than on elaborating on complex control methods.
In summary, the design of the controller for the MCG finger is intentionally kept simple to emphasize the device's inherent adaptability and versatility in grasping a wide array of objects with minimal control effort.
Point 7: The experimental part of the manuscript only provides pictures of the prototype, as for the process of applying the prototype and the related crawling data are not given, I think this part is incomplete.
Response 7: We appreciate your feedback regarding the "Prototype and Experiments" section. In this manuscript, we have primarily focused on the innovation of design concepts, showcasing the MCG finger's capability to perform various grasping modes and their combinations qualitatively through photographs. Our goal was to demonstrate the feasibility of achieving the required movements and actions with the MCG finger.
We acknowledge the importance of providing more detailed and quantitative results. In future work, we plan to conduct a more in-depth quantitative analysis to assess the performance improvements the MCG finger offers compared to traditional underactuated robot hands. Additionally, we aim to further study the witness function and its impact on the system.
Although our current experimental data is primarily based on simulations to demonstrate crawling performance, we have included grasping experiments in the text to showcase the MCG finger's potential functionality. We will consider your feedback as we continue to refine and expand upon our research. Thank you for your valuable input.
Point 8: The flexibility of the proposed robot grasping mentioned in the conclusion is not proven by relevant data in the manuscript, and the potential of application in industrial manufacturing, hazardous environment operation, marine resource detection, etc. is not proven by specific cases. I believe that part of the conclusion cannot be found in the content with corresponding arguments.
Response 8: In response to your comment regarding the flexibility of the proposed robot grasping and its potential applications, we acknowledge that the manuscript may have lacked sufficient data and specific cases to support our claims. To address this issue, we have revised the conclusion to focus on the MCG finger's demonstrated capabilities and grasping modes, as presented in the manuscript, while providing a more general description of its potential applications.
We understand the importance of substantiating our claims with relevant data and specific cases, and we appreciate your feedback in helping us improve the manuscript's clarity and accuracy.
In conclusion, we would like to express our gratitude for your valuable feedback and insights, which have allowed us to identify areas of improvement in our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of your concerns, providing additional information, revising and clarifying the text, and ensuring our explanations are clear and concise. We believe that these modifications significantly enhance the quality and coherence of our work. We hope that the revised manuscript now provides a clearer understanding of the design, functionality, and potential applications of the MCG finger. We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work and look forward to further feedback and guidance.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors responded to all comments and the revised manuscript looks much more readable. Overall, the article presents a promising development in robot finger design that may have significant implications for robotics applications. But still there are some typos in the text and in particular: on lines 57, 58, 71, 87, 88, 120 reference links lacks.
Reviewer 3 Report
I think paper is well revised
