A Differentiable Dynamic Model for Musculoskeletal Simulation and Exoskeleton Control
, Jia-Wei Chen 1,†, Yi Yang 1, Yu-Hao Lan 1, Shao-Wei Lu 1, Ching-Fu Wang 1,5, Yu-Chun Lo 6, Chien-Lin Lin 7,8, Sheng-Huang Lin 9,10,*, Po-Chuan Chen 11 and You-Yin Chen 1,6,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please carefully revise it. I attached the report of the comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Well the paper is very interesting but I would like to address the attention of the authors to three possible (I feel necessary) improvements.
a) first is the mathematical description of the model: presentation of equations is difficult to follow also because the various functions are not well indicated along with subscripts and superscripts; this part of the paper (paragraph 2.2) need a substantial rewriting with clarification
b) I would suggest to present a description of the system and feedback using a more formal control theory format: using Laplace transform would be better, although time domain description might be used for system parameters' identification
c) I wonder why the authors failed to cite the old and seminal papers of Duane T. McRuer which might be simply find here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=d+t+mcruer&btnG=
Regarding to point c) above, the authors will find that their work is rooted in McRuer's works and the new work might take a lot of benefit from those old results.
English text should be revised.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, I appreciate your efforts. But you didn’t add the Q-5 in your section. I said that please add one new section in the name of Related work and write the literature separately. I also suggested article related to EMG, I didn’t found his work in the paper.
Kindly carefully check and Add the new section (2. Related Work) and follow the Q5 comment.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I think the paper has been substantially ameliorated and very good for publication.
Author Response
We thank for the reviewer's kindly comments.
