Changes in Human Motor Behavior during the Familiarization with a Soft Back-Support Occupational Exoskeleton
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAbout description
-There is a need for more reasons why familiarization is important. I want to explain more about the problems that arise when familiarization is not achieved.
-In 2.4, POST-1 and POST 2-6 were explained separately, but the difference cannot be distinguished. It is necessary to explain the difference.
-In 2.2, the description of the Familiarization protocol is confusing. Instead of just listing the processes, I want to organize them by numbering the order of movements.
-When I look at Figure 1, I'm not sure what kind of tool it has to do with the experiment. I hope you can put a picture of the experiment using the device in Figure 1.
-Figure 2 also shows the procedure of the experiment, but it is hoped to indicate the order, such as writing numbers on the picture, or to include actual photos of the experiment.
About Evaluation
- It is an evaluation of one Passive exosuit, but it is not reliable to see it as the result of one prototype.
- It is difficult to determine how the experiment related to Figure 1 is related to the spinal assist robot.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Congratulations for your work.
The following items should be addressed:
- The abstract does not provide all the necessary information. At least the application sector and the main results are missing. In addition, I suppose the primary goal of exoskeletons is to reduce the musculoskeletal effort, contributing to the prevention of MSDs. You should specify the type of disorder.
- Introduction: low back pain is not a disorder. It is a symptom that is frequently associated with disorders. Please correct the scientific content of this part of the 1st paragraph. You can support the sentence (after correction) with the following references:
* DOI: 10.54941/ahfe1002139
* DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89617-1_36
- Also, in the Introduction section, you should develop the main challenges and limitations of the exoskeleton (in general or specifically for the lower back).
- Please use formal language. Example: "didn't" should be written as "did not".
- Section 2.1: Why is the pain in the upper/lower limbs an exclusion criterion? It can make sense but should be explained.
- A lot of information is missing in the manuscript: Why were those tasks chosen for the data acquisition protocol? What kind of occupational environment are you trying to simulate? What is the main application of your exoskeleton? In which type of tasks is the exoskeleton helping and how? How did you draw the application protocol? Why six sessions? Why 1 hour duration? Why the corfor exoskeleton? Can the familiarization process depend on the exoskeleton? And so on...
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this manuscript, the authors characterized the familiarization process to a soft back-support occupational exoskeleton and determine the time needed to stabilize studied variables.
This manuscript is quite interesting.
However, there are a few places in manuscript that need to be clarified, and some grammatical errors.
Therefore, I recommend this manuscript to be accepted for publication after minor revisions.
I present my comments and suggestions for changes in relation to the following parts of the article.
Introduction
(Line 23-24) I think it would be better to explain the need for this study by presenting more recent statistics or data than 2012.
(Line 44) I think the reference should be numbered [10] and not [11]. Please check the reference number.
Conclusion
The conclusion should investigate the academic achievement with your wok, rather than what you have done.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLine 40-41: this is e very important clinical outcome thus it should be supported by the literature. Please add relevant reference
Line 86 “materials and methods”: did any exclusion criteria applied for the subjects?
Line 175-184 : the authors mention “Marker trajectories were recorded at 150 Hz.” As well as “Participants stood on a triaxial force plate (Bertec Corp, Columbus, Ohio, USA) used to sample center of pressure (CoP) positions at a sampling rate of 1000 Hz.” . Why did you choose such frequency? Were they in agreement with the frequency of the tasks measured? Please also report the technical aspects of the optoelectronic cameras end force plates (e.g. hysteresis and so on).
Line 208-210 : “Back curvature was assessed in the 207 sagittal plane using S1, L4, L2, T12, T2 and C7 markers. Three segments (C7-T2, T12-L2, L4-S1) were used to calculate lumbar flexion (T12-L2 – L4-S1) and thoracic flexion (C7-T2 209 – T12-L2), as previously done with inertial measurement units [7].” Please specify what you mean “), as previously done with inertial measurement units”
The authors correctly summarize some of the the main findings of their study at the first paragraph of the discussion section. Please provide us some more information about your measured parameters at this 1st paragraph.
Line 450: the authors do not mention any limitations concerning the equipment used for their measurements. As an example the skin movements could affect the accuracy of kinematics measurements when marker setup and optoelectronic cameras are used. Please include the limitations of the equipment used and could affect the your final results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Congratulations on your effort, and thank you for the careful answer.
Regarding the manuscript, I still have a few concerns, namely:
- You should present other soft-back exoskeletons and justify your choice. Is it the most used one? It should be scientifically supported.
- you should also highlight the innovative component of your study and describe potential applications in the future.
- I have suggested a couple of references to support your background about MSDs.
- Line 101: what is "Injury of pain"? Once again, pain is not a disorder or injury. It is a symptom.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors addressed all the comments in a satisfactory way. well done.
Author Response
Thank you for helping us to improve the manuscript.
