Next Article in Journal
A Unified Methodology for Heartbeats Detection in Seismocardiogram and Ballistocardiogram Signals
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of a Cyber-Physical Computing System with Migration of Virtual Machines during Continuous Computing
Previous Article in Journal
Quality of Service (QoS) Management for Local Area Network (LAN) Using Traffic Policy Technique to Secure Congestion
Previous Article in Special Issue
Eliminating Nonuniform Smearing and Suppressing the Gibbs Effect on Reconstructed Images
Article
Peer-Review Record

Inertial Sensor Based Solution for Finger Motion Tracking

Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Received: 3 April 2020 / Revised: 23 April 2020 / Accepted: 3 May 2020 / Published: 12 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Selected Papers from MICSECS 2019)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Indeed this is a very interesting and very relevant topic in contemporary VR application's development. Your article was easy to read but lacks proper academic reporting, rather see more related researches in your article since there are many activities in the field of object handling in the VR environments. I am sure you can improve the scientific soundness of your article by elaborating on your findings with existing research in the DIscussion part.  Here are more improvement recommendations:

You have to add also a statement about the results in the Abstract.

You talk about VR in the article but you mentioned AR in the abstract (line 1)

is there any study demonstrate that the Hand-based is easier than the controller (line 21)

Hand-based interaction has already been studied for a long time, please add some references to the motivation part of the introduction.

Add a reference on the principle of projections or explain what do you mean, do not expect everybody knows about it (Line 54)

Your related research section is more reflect your concept than to be the related researches. You have to go through what others have been already n hand-based gesture user interface

What application you have used to do the mathematical simulation? I assume you used Matlab (Line 326).

Please elaborates more about the existing algorithm already in the related researches

In the discussion you just repeat the results but you need to elaborate more from the other researchers perspectives

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript utilizes the three-link finger model and the extension of Madgwick filter to obtain the positions and orientations of the metacarpus. A simple switching tracking algorithm is also proposed by dividing all finger motions as slow and fast motion. Experimental results on the simulated data demonstrate that both algorithms generate satisfactory accuracy. The methodologies are explained in details and the experiments are sufficient to support the conclusions.

  However, the presentations of the manuscript can be improved. (1) The abstract needs to demonstrate the experimental results and also explain what a simple switching algorithm is used for. (2) Section 1.2 can be removed and simplified as one of the research motivations. (3) Section 1.3.1 Related works needs to discuss more papers on finger tracking and clearly explain the research gaps and research contributions of this paper. In addition, Line 122 to Line 137 can be simplified. (4) Line 158, "reducing by one the number of sensors on the user's figures" seems to have some grammatical errors. (5) For the title in Fig. 3, '' vibro-tactile" is not mentioned in the manuscript. In addition, the device is not used to collect data for this manuscript. The authors should define his as a potential prototype. (6) Line 213, the reference number is not shown. (7) "Consider now a fast motion". Not a complete sentence. (8) Line 237, what is avs? (9) The manuscript has too many short paragraphs with just one sentence. Please organize the manuscript compactly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for modifying the manuscript based on the provided feedback. It is always recommendable that the authors provide list of modifications to the reviewer than the track changed document.

Reviewer 2 Report

All comments are properly addressed. The review suggests accepting the manuscript as it is.

Back to TopTop