Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attachment. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments:

The methodology is sound and the result is prepared neatly. The construct of the paper overall is quite good. It seems that a significant amount of time and effort has been put into preparing this paper. However, there are some concerns regarding the content to which this manuscript is prepared.

• Several minor grammatical errors were found throughout the manuscript. A careful English language revision is recommended. Please make sure to be consistent in the use of abbreviations and hyphenations.
• Given that several authors are current or former employees of the company that developed the REEV SENSE, and that the manuscript exclusively validates this proprietary system, additional caution is warranted in framing clinical recommendations. The manuscript would benefit from reduced promotional language and a clearer emphasis on the need for independent validation.
• The manuscript does not report standardized clinical measures of motor impairment or functional disability. As a result, the degree of motor impairment in the post-stroke is not fully characterized, limiting interpretation and generalizability of the validation results.

Specific comments are below:

Sentences where the language can be considered promotional.

Line 119

This sentence is placed here to just promote the product. The statement here can be said for most IMU based systems and not original to this product.

“A key distinguishing feature of REEV SENSE is its streamlined computational architecture: SPT parameters are calcu- lated directly within the IMU hardware without relying on magnetometer data, and re- sults are transmitted to the REEV SENSE application within less than one minute, enabling rapid feedback to clinicians. This design prioritizes practical clinical deployment, allowing physical therapists to obtain accurate gait measurements within minutes without requiring specialized laboratory infrastructure or complex post-processing procedures. The system enables rapid, non-invasive measurement of SPT gait parameters, with sensors easily and quickly attached to the patient's shoe. When paired with the REEV SENSE application, the system provides an accessible clinical tool for gait analysis, allowing physical therapists to deploy a ready-to-use solution and obtain results in real time.”

Suggest less promoting the product.

Line 436

Why use “excellent”? Promotional?

“REEV SENSE demonstrates excellent reliability for…”

Line 474

Strong promotional language used and the“cost-effectiveness” is claimed without comparison to other systems.

“REEV SENSE demonstrates excellent accuracy for clinical gait assessment in post-stroke rehabilitation, particularly for temporal parameter monitoring. The system's portability, cost-effectiveness, and performance comparable to commercial platforms establish it as a valuable tool for longitudinal tracking of gait recovery in accessible, real-world settings.”

Suggest revising.

Line 481

This claim seems to be more promotional rather than fact, more targeted for marketing. In addition, same can be said for other IMU based systems as well.

“REEV SENSE has substantial potential to democratize access to quantitative gait analysis in rehabilitation settings…”

Line 26

“This study assessed REEV SENSE IMU system validity…”

Suggestion:

“This study assessed the validity of the REEV SENSE IMU system…”

Line 62

“inertial measurement units”

Correction

“IMUs”

Line 122

“results are transmitted to the REEV SENSE application within less than one minute”

Correction:

“within one minute”

Line 153

While assistive device use and walking speed provide indirect information, the absence of standardized motor function or disability scores prevents clear stratification of impairment severity.

Include a standardized clinical measure of motor impairment.

Line 157

“ten walked without any assistive device (None) eight used a cane (Cane)”

Correction:

“ten participants walked without any assistive device (None), while eight participants used canes (Cane)”

Line 197

“g = 9.81 m.s-2”

Correction:

 “m/s²”

Line 225

“Spatiotemporal parameters was computed directly during data acquisition…”

Correction:

“SPT parameters were computed directly during data acquisition…”

Line 230

Please explain in more detail how HS and TO timings measured. Please provide references and what form of data (acceleration, angular velocity, etc.) was used.

Line 234

“Heel strikes and toe-offs are identified from the OMC data…”

Correction:

“Heel strikes and toe-offs were identified from the OMC data…”

Line 253

“The synchronization is performed offline prior to heel strike matching.”

Correction:

“The synchronization was performed offline prior to heel-strike matching.”

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Is mentioned in the specific comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article - REEV SENSE IMUs for Spatiotemporal Gait Analysis in Post-Stroke Patients: Validation Against Optical Motion Capture is one of the few studies on this topic that contains a rigorous methodological framework. The study clearly contains other sections devoted to validating kinematic parameters. But I hope to see this soon. In this study, spatiotemporal parameters were validated. The authors used an offline synchronization method. Such methods can generate varying opinions, but in this case, the authors achieved the best result. The article is very professionally written. I don't see any need for significant edits. However, Figure 1 could be improved. Dear authors, you've already used Figure 1; it's from the same publisher and the same journal. However, it's better to provide another photograph with similar content. I recommend taking it with a flash. This will clearly show the passive markers of the video system. And one more comment. Placing the inertial sensor lower on the shin (in the ankle area) will increase the leverage for calculating the kinematics, which will potentially improve accuracy. Otherwise, the study's results have high practical significance for improving the accuracy of gait parameter recording in any IMU-based system, particularly for the end of stance.

Also, I would recommend the authors remove the commercial brand name from the article's title. You cite it further down, and that's sufficient. However, your results and conclusions are significant for the entire field of motion analysis using IMU sensors. For these reasons alone, it would be better to remove the commercial name.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
I would like to express my appreciation for your efforts in attempting to address the suggestions provided. I have noted the changes made to the manuscript, which improve the clarity and quality of the work. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments:

The revised manuscript satisfactorily addresses most prior concerns. Limitations related to assistive device use, slow walking speed and lack of standardized motor impairment measures are now clearly acknowledged. While some product-oriented language remains, the overall tone is substantially more balanced and conclusions are appropriately constrained by the data. Though I do believe that the authors can go around the IP defense to provide a more general explanation to how they are detecting HC and TO using the IMUs, I support acceptance pending minor editorial review.