AI-Based Soft Module for Safe Human–Robot Interaction towards 4D Printing
, Mohammad Reza Khosravani 2, Hoang Duong Vu 1, Minh Khoi Nguyen 1, Abbas Z. Kouzani 1 and Mahdi Bodaghi 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, the authors focus on the safe tactile interaction between humans and robots employing soft materials characteristics for translating physical communication to auditory. The embedded vibratory sensors stimulate touch senses transmitted through soft materials. The study develops and verifies a model that can classify different tactile gestures via machine learning algorithms for a safe human-robot physical interaction. The system accurately recognizes the gestures and the shapes of the soft modules. This article is clear, concise, and suitable for the scope of the journal. Several small suggestions are supplied:
1. Suggest the authors improve the quality of Fig.1.
2. Suggest the author's supply length label for the device in Fig.3.
3. Suggest the authors supply more detail for data acquisition results of slapping, squeezing, and tickling, from top to bottom, respectively.
4. Suggest the authors check the PDF version carefully, avoid some typos etc.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
In this paper, the authors focus on the safe tactile interaction between humans and robots employing soft materials characteristics for translating physical communication to auditory. The embedded vibratory sensors stimulate touch senses transmitted through soft materials. The study develops and verifies a model that can classify different tactile gestures via machine learning algorithms for a safe human-robot physical interaction. The system accurately recognizes the gestures and the shapes of the soft modules. This article is clear, concise, and suitable for the scope of the journal. Several small suggestions are supplied:
- Suggest the authors improve the quality of Fig.1.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The quality of figure 1 is enhanced by sharpening it while reducing its contrast in the revised file.
- Suggest the author's supply length label for the device in Fig.3.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The size of the modules is included in the caption.
- Suggest the authors supply more detail for data acquisition results of slapping, squeezing, and tickling, from top to bottom, respectively.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. A new set of figures are included in the revised manuscript, Fig. 6, to provide more details for the comparison of the results, particularly relevant to different shape of modules.
- Suggest the authors check the PDF version carefully, avoid some typos, etc.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The manuscript was thoroughly proofread by the authors before the revised submission.
Reviewer 2 Report
Kindly consider the attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 2
The paper is interesting and it covers active subjects that exist. I propose the paper for publication and I’d like authors to consider the highlighted comments in their paper to improve its quality.
- Abstract: I propose considering a 1-2 line explanation regarding the problematic of the work or an introduction through the subject and then start talking about the detail of the paper.
Response: Thank you for your comment and for acknowledging our work. The following lines are included in the abstract of the revised manuscript:
“Soft robotic modules have potential use for therapeutic and educational purposes. To do so, they need to be safe, soft, smart, and customizable to serve the individuals’ different preferences and personalities. A safe modular robotic product made of soft materials, particularly silicon, programmed by artificial intelligence algorithms and developed via additive manufacturing would be promising.”
- Figure 6: They are not clear enough. Consider revising the curves and the axis of the curves to be clear enough for comparing the results, etc.
Response: Thank you for your suggestions. A new set of figures are included in the revised manuscript to provide more details for the comparison of the results, particularly relevant to different shape of modules.
- Figure 7: The same as previous comment.
Response: Thank you for your comment. Figure 7 is replaced with a new version in the revised manuscript too.
I propose the paper for publication regarding the amount of performed work. The section ‘results and discussion’ is written well, and the organization of the paper is appreciable.
Best wishes in your work
Response: Thank you for your comments.
