Real-Time Forward Head Posture Detection and Correction System Utilizing an Inertial Measurement Unit Sensor
Zhiming Zhang
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is academically well-written, demonstrating good language proficiency and a clear understanding of the subject matter. The structure of the paper, overall, is well-organized and the arguments presented are coherent and substantiated with appropriate references.
Specific Comments:
- Order of References: The ordering of references in the manuscript needs revision. Specifically, in the Introduction section, the sequence of references is inconsistent (e.g., Reference #29 is cited after Reference #4). It is recommended to check and correct the order of all references to maintain a sequential and logical citation pattern.
- Figure in Introduction: The Introduction section currently includes Figure 1, which is unusual for this section and can be distracting. It is advisable to remove Figure 1 from the Introduction and instead describe the content using appropriate textual descriptions.
- Citation Style: The current citation style in the manuscript (e.g., In [8]) is less professional and might hinder reader comprehension. It is suggested to adopt a more conventional citation style, such as Lee et al., [8]) to enhance the readability and academic tone of the paper.
- Written consent: It is not clear whether the written consent were received from the research participants.
With these minor revisions, particularly the correction of reference order, removal of figures from the Introduction, and improvement in citation style, the manuscript would be greatly strengthened. The core content and academic merit of the paper are commendable, and these adjustments will enhance its clarity and professional presentation.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
It is well written
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. We tried our best to revise the manuscript considering your feedback and questions. If there are any more deficiencies, I would appreciate it if you could let me know.
1. Order of References: The ordering of references in the manuscript needs revision. Specifically, in the Introduction section, the sequence of references is inconsistent (e.g., Reference #29 is cited after Reference #4). It is recommended to check and correct the order of all references to maintain a sequential and logical citation pattern.
>> I corrected the order of all references to maintain a sequential and logical citation pattern.
2. Figure in Introduction: The Introduction section currently includes Figure 1, which is unusual for this section and can be distracting. It is advisable to remove Figure 1 from the Introduction and instead describe the content using appropriate textual descriptions.
>> I removed Figure 1 and modified the content.
3. Citation Style: The current citation style in the manuscript (e.g., In [8]) is less professional and might hinder reader comprehension. It is suggested to adopt a more conventional citation style, such as Lee et al., [8]) to enhance the readability and academic tone of the paper.
>> I have modified the citation style as you suggested.
4. Written consent: It is not clear whether the written consent were received from the research participants.
>> I have the written consent from the research participants. I specified it in my manuscript. [At the end of this manuscript]
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe issue of Forward Head Posture (FHP) addressed by authors has some clinical significances because the FHP, in other popular term, the "text neck" which is a complex cluster of clinical symptoms primarily caused by prolong and/or inappropriate use personal computer and Mobil phone. FHP or neck pain usually an adult health problem has also very recently seen in children and adolescents who spend a log of time watching smartphones and computers. Therefore, to find an appropriate approach for early diagnosis and treatment has become rigorous issue.
However, after spent hours reading the manuscript, followings were found:
1. the manuscript was very hard to read and followed,
2. It appeared that the authors did not use regular format set up by the journal: introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion and conclusion. It could be the reason to follow authors' designs for the study.
3. All testing and measuring were conducted in five male participants (based on the manuscript). it was unclear the all participants were normal volunteers or have FHP history, and historic information regarding using personal computer and cellular phone. Are data collected from the study reflect real conditions of FHP?
4. The data presented by authors is difficultly interpret by the reviewer who has decades preclinical and clinical experience.
Before next around review, the manuscript must be revised thoroughly and simplified.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. We tried our best to revise the manuscript considering your feedback and questions. If there are any more deficiencies, I would appreciate it if you could let me know.
1. the manuscript was very hard to read and followed.
2. It appeared that the authors did not use regular format set up by the journal: introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion and conclusion. It could be the reason to follow authors' designs for the study.
>> I restructured my manuscript considering your feedback to improve the readability.
3. All testing and measuring were conducted in five male participants (based on the manuscript). it was unclear the all participants were normal volunteers or have FHP history, and historic information regarding using personal computer and cellular phone. Are data collected from the study reflect real conditions of FHP?
>> Rather than the purpose of accurately diagnosing and treating FHP patients, this study was about preventing FHP, to which can progress from bad postures in modern people in daily life. Of course, our method could also be used for FHP patients.
Therefore, the participants are not FHP patients, but people who use computers and cell phones for a long time in their daily lives. We conducted experiments that demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed system to correct bad postures that appeared over time compared to initial good postures. Participants also indicated whether they had a history of FHP and how much time they spent on their computers and smartphones.
4. The data presented by authors is difficultly interpret by the reviewer who has decades preclinical and clinical experience.
>> We presented the data in tables so that it could be easily and simply shown instead of graphs.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors(1) The article should consider more measurement indicators rather than just focusing on the CVA indicator.
(2) The number of experimental references in the article is not sufficient, and the sample size is not large enough. There are only five experimental subjects, which lacks representativeness and stability.
(3) In Figure 18, why was Threshold2 set as the average value of the data received in the first 10 seconds plus one? Please provide a detailed explanation.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo comments for the time being
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. We tried our best to revise the manuscript considering your feedback and questions. If there are any more deficiencies, I would appreciate it if you could let me know.
(1) The article should consider more measurement indicators rather than just focusing on the CVA indicator.
>> In Mahmoud et al. [3], more than 10 out of 13 papers used CVA as a method to measure FHP; therefore, CVA is a well-known metric to detect FHP. There are papers that have used CROM devices to measure the upper cervical angle (UCA) and used it as an indicator of FHP, but the devices are expensive.
This paper proposed a practical system using cost-effective IoT sensors that anyone can easily obtain around them for the purpose of correcting bad posture that can progress to FHP in daily life. Therefore, since this paper does not have the target of accurate medical diagnosis or medical treatment using expensive devices or precision diagnostic systems, but an IoT system preventing the progression to FHP through a well-known metric of CVA was devised.
(2) The number of experimental references in the article is not sufficient, and the sample size is not large enough. There are only five experimental subjects, which lacks representativeness and stability.
>> We increased the number of people (10 persons, double size) and the duration of the experiment to improve representativeness and reliability.
(3) In Figure 18, why was Threshold2 set as the average value of the data received in the first 10 seconds plus one? Please provide a detailed explanation.
>> Threshold2 is the value used by Algorithm 2 to distinguish between case 1 and case 2. If an user continues to maintain the bad posture, the measured CVA will be similar to the previous value. If the user tries to get out of the bad posture, the CVA value will be larger than the previous value. Therefore, the Threshold2 is set based on the average of the previous values, and we experimentally found that adding 1 can effectively distinguish between cases 1 and 2. Since our system is a personalized system, users can also set the Threshold2 based on the average of the previous values plus a number such as 0.5 or 2 instead of 1 if they want.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript appears improved after the revision although authors' responses did not accurately understand and address all questions raised by the reviewer.
