Application of Bivariate Reproducing Kernel-Based Best Interpolation Method in Electrical Tomography

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have proposed a Bivariate Reproducing Kernel-Based Best Interpolation (BRKBI) method to improve the image reconstruction which aims to improve the quality of the reconstructed images. I recommend this work for publications on Sensors after the authors addressed my concerns below:

1. In the introduction, the references did not include the paper published in these two years, especially for the reconstruction algorithms.  

 

2. In the section 2, I think that a lot of contents are not useful. I suggested that authors should focus on the relationship between the influences of measurement number on image quality.

 

3. In section 2.2, the description of interpolation approximation based on Bivariate Reproducing Kernels is very difficult to relate to obtain more measurement number, and how to prove the accuracy?

 

4. For the validation by simulation and experiments, it is found that the optimal number of Interpolation will determined by the distribution of tested phantoms. Therefore, how to determine the optimal number of Interpolation before conducting proposed methods.

 

 

5. In figure 1, ERT systems usually employ the current excitation and voltage measurement. The excitation and measurement principle of this paper was proposed by Jiangtao Sun( the university of Manchester), please add related reference.

 

6. Figure 4 and figure 5 are not clear, please update more clear figures

 

 

7. The symbols of some formulas did not provide explanations. Such as formula -8, 9,10...35.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached docx file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. The line numbers referenced in the response document correspond to those in your annotated PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

please see the attched file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors shoud check my comments more carefully, I think the revised manuscript is too simple, which is not strong enough to defend my comments. please making the revisions again.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my issuses was revised by the author, now l think that the paper can be published in Sensors

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your recognition of our research and for your positive comments regarding the agreement to publish our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your invaluable feedback and support.

Sincerely,

Junqi Yu