Design and Implementation of a Tripod Robot Control System Using Hand Kinematics and a Sensory Glove

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper seems to show certain values on their proposed robot control system. However, it needs substantial works for the improvement in order to publish in this journal. Here are the following comments:

1. In section 1, I do not see exactly what the authors want to propose in this paper. They need to write down their contribution and significance from this paper.

2. Also, section 1 has only one giant paragraph. It is not readable. Please break down at least 2~3 paragraphs.

3. In Section 2, the authors described the classification of the industrial robots, especially focus on Cartesian, cylindrical, and delta robots. However, they did not address why this section has to be present this classification for their paper and failed to provide the reasonable explanation of the connection between their proposal (or contribution) and this classification description. Please address this part.

4. In Section 2, if the authors mentioned about the real examples of industrial robots, it would make sense that they should have provided the actual images and description of each robot in the clear format. Table and additional reference should be fine. 

5. In Section 3, I am not sure whether the figure 3 is the proposed system or in general. Also, the authors kept pointing out the communication protocol which I could not find in figure 3. Please describe them explicitly

6. Figure 8 needs more work to be presentable.

7. Is the section 4 the experiment result and analysis? there are a lot of effort need to be put.

8. There are numbering duplication between "Signal Filtering" Section and "Conclusion" Section.

9. In general, the authors must work on English description and expression. 

10. Also, the author needs to fix the entire organization of this paper. Otherwise, it is not publishable.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In general, the authors must work on English description and expression.

Author Response

I would like to sincerely thank you for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing my article. Your feedback and suggestions are incredibly valuable to me, as they help identify aspects that require improvement and refinement. I particularly appreciate the thoroughness with which you analyzed the content and your constructive criticism, which allows me to view the topic from a new perspective. Your review not only highlighted specific areas for enhancement but also inspired me to further develop the text. I am grateful for your engagement and the insightful, well-thought-out recommendations that will undoubtedly contribute to improving the quality of my work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors developed a sensory glove  that allows for controlling a delta robot using hand movement. Work is good.

Before accepting, auhtors must explain clealy as follows:

1. delta robot mechanism and its DOF and principle.

2. driving system of delta robot mechanism.

3. the relation between driving system of delta robot mechanism and control system.

4. the relation control system of delta robot mechanism and sensory glove.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough analysis and valuable feedback on my article. Your review has drawn my attention to key areas that need refinement, which will undoubtedly improve the final version of my work. I appreciate the detail and diligence of your assessment, which will help me enhance both the content and its presentation. Your insights are extremely helpful and inspiring to me.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript proposes the design and implementation of a tripod robot control system utilizing hand kinematics data captured through a sensory glove. The following issues are present in the manuscript:

1. The manuscript should enumerate the innovations of this work to highlight its necessity.

2. It is recommended that the author present the hardware information in a table to facilitate the readers' understanding.

3. The real-time performance of the control system determines its overall effectiveness. It is recommended that the author provide details on the system's operational efficiency.

4. The font sizes in the figures of the manuscript are inconsistent. For better visual presentation, it is recommended that the author further refine the figures.

Author Response

I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you put into reviewing my article. Your comments and suggestions are extremely valuable to me and will help improve my work. I truly appreciate both your constructive criticism and insights, which allow me to look at the topic from a new perspective. Your dedication to this process is very meaningful and inspiring to me.   

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study designed a sensory glove that receives sensory data including location and orientation information, processes the signals, and ultimately, controls a tripod robot. This is an innovative approach to robot control, using hand movement and location, and alleviating the operator from the hard programming of the robot. I very much appreciate the first and the second section of the manuscript, giving the readers an overview of the current status of robotic control. They are concisely written, and laid a solid foundation for the following sections introducing the author's own design of the controlling system. However, starting from the third section, the writing is off and the materials were put together haphazardly. Below are a few points that I would like to point out:

·        Line 179 “it was decided to choose the ESP32 module”. I understand the authors are trying to expand on the reason for choosing this microcontroller, but the phrasing is confusing. Line 182 states that “it has much greater computing power and memory … and enables more accurate reading with a higher frequency”. I wonder what other microcontrollers were compared. It would be beneficial if the authors could clarify the specs of ESP32. Check the grammar as well.

·        Line 194 mentioned the use of the Kalman filter. While I see a more detailed description of the Kalman filter provided in the following section, it would be better if proper citations for the Kalman filter were provided when it was mentioned for the first time in the manuscript. Line 199 mentioned MEMS technology, please provide the full name for the acronym (like you did with IMU in the same sentence).

·        Line 203 – 204. This sentence is left here hanging, while the specs were provided in the following paragraph. The organization of this section is all over the place. Another example of the chaotic organization is in Line 216. The actual dimensions of the module were nowhere to be found  while a statement was made according to the module’s size.

·        Line 236 – 237. Clarify the “growing popularity”. It is confusing because “more and more manufacturers … decide to implement this” is the definition of popularity.

·        Table 3, button 1. What kind of system status information could be sent with one button push?

·        Line 288 – 290. Is there a reason to describe the same type of data variables in three half sentences?

·        Starting from Line 338, the authors introduced a way to eliminate measurement noise. Is this dedicated to rotation speed or all measurements? The last paragraph seemed to suggest that the averaging filter works great for all measurements except the rotation speed.

·        I was expecting an application case for the introduced control system after section 3. Yet section 4 quickly concluded the entire manuscript. The validity of the design was not tested and no actual evidence of the system's working results were provided. I wonder if the authors could add a section discussing a use case for the system.

·        The title mentioned tripod robot, yet no discussion on this was found throughout the manuscript. Is the controlling system specific for tripod robots? If so, please add relevant details.

 

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The first two sections were concisely written, but starting from the third section, the descriptions of the designed controlling system were organized haphazardly. See comments for authors for details.

Author Response

I would like to sincerely thank you for your time and effort in reviewing my article. Your comments and suggestions are extremely valuable and will help me significantly improve the quality of my work. I appreciate the thorough analysis and constructive feedback, which allow me to view the topic from a new perspective. Your review has drawn my attention to important aspects that need refinement and has also inspired me to further develop the text. Once again, thank you for your engagement and insightful feedback, which will undoubtedly contribute to a better version of my article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper showed improvement and now it becomes reviewable. However, there are some parts that still needs modification.

1. In Section 1, the author may need to add one more paragraph that explains about the structure of this paper like starting "This paper consists as follows.......".

2. I highly discouraged to use the less publishable phrase like "most" or "common".

 

3. You may resolve certain paragraph issue but not exactly. Page 9 has too many paragraphs which are understandable, but page 10~11 paragraph is no break as well as page 5. 

 

4. There is a mixed-up between formulation and performance results in Section 4. Formulation before the performance results could have been more presented.

5. Starting from table 3, all tables contain full sentences which are not readable and difficult to understand. Please fix them.

6. In Section 6, the paragraph is too long and not really conclusion-material. Please fix them

7. For formula description, it has to be journal suitable. For instance, in equation (6), you described all the parameters like a list and I have never seen like this. Since all the formula have similar issues, please fix them

8. As always, english writing need to be worked more.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors need to work more on english writing. Much improvement was shown, but not enough.

Author Response

Thank you for your time and enormous contribution to writing the review. I think that the corrections made will make the article more readable.

Comment 1: In Section 1, the author may need to add one more paragraph that explains about the structure of this paper like starting "This paper consists as follows.......".

Response 1: Section 1 has been supplemented with a section describing the structure of the article on lines 82-85

Comment 2: I highly discouraged to use the less publishable phrase like "most" or "common".

Response 2: The number of words considered common has been reduced in the article.

Comment 3: You may resolve certain paragraph issue but not exactly. Page 9 has too many paragraphs which are understandable, but page 10~11 paragraph is no break as well as page 5. 

Response 3: Paragraphs on the indicated pages have been corrected.

Comment 4: There is a mixed-up between formulation and performance results in Section 4. Formulation before the performance results could have been more presented.

Response 4: Section 4 has been rearranged by adding appropriate sunsections describing the filtration process.

Comment 5: Starting from table 3, all tables contain full sentences which are not readable and difficult to understand. Please fix them.

Response 5: Where possible, the information in the tables has been shortened to reflect the purpose more precisely

Comment 6: In Section 6, the paragraph is too long and not really conclusion-material. Please fix them

Respone 6: Section 6 is divided into paragraphs. Lines 565-578 describe the purpose of the article and further work.

Comment 7: For formula description, it has to be journal suitable. For instance, in equation (6), you described all the parameters like a list and I have never seen like this. Since all the formula have similar issues, please fix them

Response 7: Lines 462-478 have been added, which replaced the previous list of parameters and describe the formula used and the filtration method in accordance with the publisher's template

Comment 8: As always, english writing need to be worked more.

Response 8: The English language has been analyzed and improved

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Auhtor has complcted major revisions. Work is good.

It should includ following relative paper in intruduction and refreces papers this paper. 

 Development and kinematics/statics analysis of rigid-flexible-soft hybrid
finger mechanism with standard force sensor.  Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 67 (2021) 101978
 

Author Response

Thank you for your reply and the entire review process. The reviews obtained allowed us to improve the quality of the written article.

Comment 1: It should includ following relative paper in intruduction and refreces papers this paper. 

Response 1: The article has been supplemented with an appropriate citation from the mentioned article in lines 70-76

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have well addressed all my concerns in the revision. The manuscript is acceptable for publication in its present form.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive review of the article. The review obtained allowed us to improve the article in a satisfactory manner, and the information you provided will also be used in subsequent articles.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author addressed some of my comments. However, need to more fix as follows.

 

1. In section 1, it is suitable to provide the structure of the paper as an example of "This paper consists as follows. Section 2 is ....."

2. is Section 4 performance result or description of the experiment? Still quite not sure what the author intends on this section.

3. In Section 6, the conclusion is wordy. Need to fix it.

4. In Section 4, subsection numbering is not right. Need to fix it.

5. Organization becomes better, but still need to fix it more.

Now this paper is reveiwable and need to fix many parts of it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Your english is wordy and too much description. Please concise them.

Author Response

Dear reviewer. Thank you for your thorough analysis of the article and your valuable comments. Correcting it in accordance with your comments will improve the quality of the article and will also contribute to improving the form of the articles we write in the future.

Comment 1: In section 1, it is suitable to provide the structure of the paper as an example of "This paper consists as follows. Section 2 is ....."

Response 1: I agree with you that section 1 should contain a description of the individual sections. Lines 82-91 describe exactly the sections contained in the article.

Comment 2: is Section 4 performance result or description of the experiment? Still quite not sure what the author intends on this section.

Response 2: Thanks for your feedback. I realized that section 4 might have been unclear due to the lack of a proper start to the section. Lines 408-414 were added describing what filters were analyzed in the experiment. The authors considered at this point whether basic recursive filters are sufficient for the chosen application.

Comment 3: In Section 6, the conclusion is wordy. Need to fix it.

Response 3: Section 6 has been revised. The information about the conclusions has been presented in a different way, avoiding unnecessary repetitions. The whole section has been divided into 3 shorter paragraphs.

Comment 4: In Section 4, subsection numbering is not right. Need to fix it.

Response 4: We sincerely apologize for our oversight. The numbering has already been corrected accordingly.

Comment 5: Organization becomes better, but still need to fix it more.

Response 5: The organization has been improved. The size of figures has been adjusted. The amount of empty space in the article has been reduced and paragraphs have been improved.

Round 4

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Two more things.

1. Please edit section 4 title somehow that includes "experimental results".
2. Please edit more english. much improved as compared to the first version, but still need to work on more

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As I mentioned, please fix english.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for providing another review of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the entire review process, which has significantly contributed to improving our article. Thanks to your comments, the article is not only more engaging but also more polished stylistically.

Comment 1: Please edit section 4 title somehow that includes "experimental results".
Response 1: The title of the section has been modified as per your suggestion.

Comment 2: Please edit more english, much improved as compared to the first version, but still need to work on more.
Response 2: The English language in the text has been further refined in collaboration with the person responsible for language editing of manuscripts submitted to scientific journals.