Feature-Based Gait Pattern Modeling on a Treadmill

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper through changes in current consumption of the driving motor that occurs while walking on the treadmill to identify the pressure distribution of the foot. The study results show that the heavier the subject's weight, the higher the value of each feature point, and the feature point-based gait modeling is expected to provide an index that can determine whether a subject's gait is abnormal if the difference between features is outside the allowable range.

Although this manuscript appears to have some value for research in the field, much work still needs to be accomplished before it can be published. Below are some of the major comments identified as a result of the review:

(1)   This is a research article, not a review paper, and captures the point of exposition. Thus, reduce the background information from the “Introduction” and “Related Work”, and focus on enhancing the details of your work.

(2)   Some of the images are rough, such as Figure 2 and Figure 7; Some of the images are pretty pointless, such as Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 6. Illustrations can be visualized to help readers understand the main points of the article and help support and serve as an argument for the main findings of the article, so please revise to enhance the presentation of the manuscript.

(3)   The overall language style is cumbersome and not refined enough to be concise. Such as the “Conclusions” section, is too long and difficult to capture the core innovation and highlight.

(4)   Can you please include more works reported in the literature during the last 3 years as well to make your survey up to date?

Please thoroughly proofread the paper for typos and other linguistic corrections/improvements. A few examples are given below:

* Even the title is not correct: It should be ' Feature-Based Gait Pattern Modeling on a Treadmill'

* Line 11, “in the current”  

* Line 17, “and the symmetry of the left and right footsteps”

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank you for pointing out the contents that was not properly described in the previous manuscript during the submission process. We tried to understand the reviewer’s points by reading the following comments what you pointed out several times. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper studies "Feature-Based Gait Pattern Modeling on a Treadmill".

1. Overall, you need to check the grammar of your manuscript.

2. Please rewrite the abstract, must improve your ideea based on sensor to the treadmill to collect instantaneous data.

3. Please center the all figures.

4. In part "5.1. Feature points-based modelling by Sex", you write about 4 males and 8 females for the experimental results, but in table 2, you have 4 males and 4 females.

5. Please improve your references, add a present articles about your expertise area.

6. Please add the references in one format (e.g. same format, same dimension).

 

I recomand minor revision.

 

This paper studies "Feature-Based Gait Pattern Modeling on a Treadmill".

1. Overall, you need to check the grammar of your manuscript.

2. Please rewrite the abstract, must improve your ideea based on sensor to the treadmill to collect instantaneous data.

3. Please center the all figures.

4. In part "5.1. Feature points-based modelling by Sex", you write about 4 males and 8 females for the experimental results, but in table 2, you have 4 males and 4 females.

5. Please improve your references, add a present articles about your expertise area.

6. Please add the references in one format (e.g. same format, same dimension).

 

I recomand minor revision.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank you for pointing out the contents that was not properly described in the previous manuscript during the submission process. We tried to understand the reviewer’s points by reading the following comments what you pointed out several times. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

A fast and efficient revision process, and meaningful research work, can be recommended for publication.