You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
by
  • Dana Dohr1,*,
  • Katharina Wulf2 and
  • Niels Grabow2
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Giuseppe Schiavone Reviewer 2: Caisheng Wu

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attached pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for taking the time to critically review our work.

We hope that we have satisfactorily addressed all of your useful comments and suggestions. Please see the attachment.

Sincerely,

Dana Dohr

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has a novel theme and is worth publishing, with some detailed modifications suggested.

1.The conclusion part (P15) “…In this case, a PLLA coating does not create any limitations in the parameters set at higher insertion speeds…”: It is questionable that such conclusion is given only based on the pressure and frictional force of an in-vitro linear model of cochlea. Is it possible to provide the data of other models or in-vivo models to support the conclusion?

2.The author only tested a coating thickness (10 µm). Can the author explain why this thickness is selected? Do other PLLA coating’s electrode arrays also follow the same law in terms of insertion pressure and frictional force?

3.According to the SEM graphs on P11, the PLLA coating will deform and produce bits after the pressure and friction tests. Are there any possible safety issues arising from those bits in the applications?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for taking the time to critically review our work.

We hope that we have satisfactorily addressed all of your useful comments and suggestions. Please see the attachment.

Sincerely,

Dana Dohr

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf