Myoelectric Controlled Bionic Robotic Hand for Voluntary Finger Motion Driven by Neuromuscular Intent

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please, see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. Abstract appears too long. Some sentences of the abstract are usually part of Introduction paragraph.

I think the abstract should be rewritten because it is not clear for the reader at all. There are some parts that anticipate what it is written later. I found it confusing to understand the summary of the manuscript.

For instance: "The main contribution of this work lies in the design of a deterministic, layered embedded software architecture that enables reliable real-time interpretation of neuromuscular signals for multi-finger actuation".

Then... "A key innovation is the implementation of fully decoupled, non-blocking finite state machines running in parallel for each finger, allowing scalable and simultaneous activation while ensuring temporal determinism". In my opinion the message is not clear.

 

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this lack of clarity of the abstract; we agree it is an important section of a scientific manuscript.  We have revised the abstract to improve clarity and conciseness, focusing on the key contributions and experimental validation while avoiding overly detailed technical descriptions that are better suited for the Methods sections. (lines 2-13)

 

2. Introduction paragraph is clear, well written and covers most of the aspects of research in the field.

For what concerns mechanical design, a powerful tool is the use of multibody models. As reported in:

Cosenza, C. , Niola, V., & Savino, S. (2018). A mechanical hand for prosthetic applications: multibody model and contact simulation. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 232(8), 819-825.

Cosenza, C. , Niola, V. , & Savino, S. (2021). A simplified model ofa multi-jointed mechanical finger calibrated with experimental data by vision system. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part K: Journal ofMu1ti-b0dy Dynamics, 2350), 164-175.

A1-Shahrabi, A. , Javid, M. J., Fahmy, A. A. , Griffiths, C. A., & Li, C. (2024). Modeling the DLRHIT II Robotic Hand: A Dual-Platform Simulation Approach in MATLAB and CoppeliaSim. IEEE Access, 12, 181332-181340.

Multibody model can be used to test in simulation even the control performance and becomes a powerful platform for engineers. Models can also be enriched with experimental data to improve their reliability. Control laws can be input of model to test the grasping movement.

 

Thank you for this insightful comment. A brief sentence was introduced in the mechanical design paragraph mentioning multibody modelling, providing further insight into the research field around this topic. (lines 132-140)

 

3. 
   Figure 2 represents the electrode placement on the wrist and forearm. I know there is a crosstalk problem between the signal acquired on very close muscles. Does the placement of the electrode labelled as Index Electrode so far from the index guarantee the best compromise between signal amplitude and crosstalk? Maybe, these aspects could be more stressed in line from 163 to 170.

However, Figure 2, in my opinion, is confusing and some of views appear redundant. I think that one view or at most two views are enough to give the right message.

Thank you for your feedback. We agree that electrode placement involves a trade-off between signal amplitude and crosstalk. The “Index Electrode” was positioned to balance these factors, ensuring sufficient signal strength while minimizing interference from adjacent muscles. We will clarify this rationale in the manuscript by updating the relevant section in lines 196-204 and 179-189

Regarding Figure 2, instead of revising the current image, we will replace it with a new, clearer illustration that removes redundant views and highlights the most informative perspective.

4. 
   Line 188: "Surface electromyography (sEMG) signals acquired from forearm electrodes are inherently low in amplitude, typically ranging from 50 uV to 5 mV.." are microvolts values associated with signals at rest? Please, comment or clarify in text.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The microvolt range is indeed when at rest. It is now clarified in the text. (lines 232 and 233)

Surface electromyography (sEMG) signals acquired from forearm electrodes are inherently low in amplitude, typically ranging from 50~$\mu$V\hl{, when at rest,} to 5~mV, \hl{with higher-level contraction,}, and are highly susceptible to external interference, motion artifacts, and electrode-skin impedance variations. Consequently, an analog front-end with high noise immunity and adequate amplification is required prior to digital processing.

 

5. 
   Line 193: "a two-operational-amplifier instrumentation amplifier" ensure the correctness of the sentence.

Thank you for your comment. We confirm that the first stage consists of an instrumentation amplifier (INA125) implemented using a two-operational-amplifier topology. The sentence has been revised for clarity. (lines 236-238)

The first stage consists of a operational-amplifier instrumentation amplifier 193 (INA125), selected for its high input impedance, excellent common-mode rejection ra- 194 tio (CMRR), and precise gain control.

6. 
   Equation 1: "the gain of the INA125 is five", a value of five is appropriate? Are you sure about Unit Measurement? RG in KOhm?

We thank the reviewer for this observation. The gain of 5 was a deliberate design choice: a low front-end gain was selected to avoid amplifier saturation due to noise and interference at the electrode-skin interface. Subsequent amplification is applied after the filtering stage, where the signal-to-noise ratio is significantly improved. Regarding units, we confirm that RG=60kΩ . This claraification can be seen in lines 242-244

Since the value chosen for $R_G$ is of $60\,k\Omega$, represented in Figure~\ref{fig:filter}, the gain of the INA125 is five, preventing saturation in the presence of noise and motion artifacts, with the remaining amplification applied downstream following signal conditioning.

 

7. 
   At the pages 6 and 7: the authors referenced to different part of the scheme reported in Figure 4.

Making some coloured dashed boxed to highlight the different part can aid the comprehension.

Thank you for the suggestion the identification of the different functional blocks referenced in the text, Figure 4 has been updated by adding colored dashed boxes highlighting the corresponding sections of the circuit.

 

8. Figure 8: what is the time of computation to perform all the stages depicted in Figure 8 from the top to bottom for 30 seconds?

Thank you for your comment. The simulation time required to process the full 30-second signal shown in Figure 8 was approximately 1 minute and 13 seconds on the system used for the analysis. This information has been added to the manuscript.

Figure 8 shows a simulation of the sEMG signal as it passes through the complete analog front-end, from raw acquisition to the ADC-ready output. The figure highlights how the signal is conditioned, amplified, rectified, and scaled for digital conversion. The simulation of the full 30-second signal required approximately 1 minute and 13 seconds of computation time.

 

9. 
   Figure 11: in my opinion, some labels with arrows should be added to the figure giving information of the several parts.

Thank you for the suggestion. To improve readability and facilitate interpretation, Figure 11 has been updated by adding labels with arrows identifying the main components and relevant parts of the system.

10. 
    In the results, from line 364 to line 369 and consequently Figure 16, there are some critical aspects.

Signals for each finger affects closure time, finger closure sequence and as consequence grasping efficacy in real world applications. None of these aspects have been discussed and considered.

We thank the reviewer for this observation. We would like to clarify that the test presented in Figure 16 and the associated text was not intended to evaluate grasping efficacy, but rather to demonstrate that multiple fingers can be actuated simultaneously based on independent sEMG signals. The red vertical line represents the moment at which the system reads the processed signals, illustrating that the control framework correctly interprets concurrent muscle activations across different channels. Aspects such as finger closure sequence and grasping performance are acknowledged as important considerations for future work, where task-specific grasping trials would provide a more complete evaluation of real-world applicability.

11. 
    Line 378: "standard calipers and a force sensor" no details have been given to these measurements or at least about sensors adopted.

We thank the reviewer for this observation. We have updated the text to include full details of the instrumentation used for mechanical measurements. (lines 440-442)

using digital calipers with a ±0.01 mm resolution (Digikey, Thief River Falls, MN, USA) and a handheld newton force gauge with a range of 0.1-5 N (ATO, Golden Springs, CA, USA).

 

12. Figure 1: I suggest increasing the text dimensions. Ensure that text is readable at 100% of magnification. I do not know if the image is original but maybe it could be useful for comprehension to pay attention just on the muscles that are involved in the study. However, if the illustration is not original, reference and permission requirements should be included.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. Upon reflection, we agreed that the figure required significant modification to meet readability standards and to focus attention on the specific muscles relevant to this study. As the illustration was not original, addressing the reference and permission requirements would have added complexity. We therefore decided to remove the figure entirely and instead describe the relevant forearm musculature directly in the text, which we believe provides sufficient anatomical context for the reader without the associated figure quality and attribution concerns.

In this work, independent control of the bionic hand requires reliable detection of intended finger movements. For individuals with upper-limb loss, control commands can be derived from sEMG signals generated by residual forearm musculature. Finger motion is primarily controlled by flexor and extensor muscle groups located within the anterior and posterior compartments of the forearm. The anterior compartment includes the flexor digitorum superficialis, flexor digitorum profundus, and flexor pollicis longus, while the posterior compartment contains the extensor digitorum and related extensor muscles. These muscles are anatomically dense, layered, and partially overlapping. Due to volume conduction through biological tissues, electrical activity from deeper or adjacent muscles propagates to the skin surface, limiting spatial selectivity. As a result, isolating the activation of a single finger using surface electrodes becomes inherently challenging.

 

13. The comments regarding text dimensions must be considered for ALL the figures in the study. I suggest uniform figures following the style of Figure 12 and 13 that are clear and readable.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have reviewed all figures in the manuscript and improved text dimensions and readability where possible, taking Figures 12 and 13 as a reference for style and clarity. For certain technical diagrams, such as those generated from EDA software, the complexity of the circuit layout imposes practical limits on how much the text size can be increased while preserving the integrity of the diagram. In these cases, we have made the best possible adjustments within these constraints to improve legibility.

14. 
    Figure 15: reduce useless white space between dorsal and actuation.

We thank the reviewer for this observation. We have reduced the useless white space between the images in the mentioned figure.

15. 
    Typo errors seen in the manuscript:

Line 4: in the abstract: "an" myoelectric line 4 instead of "a" myoelectric

Line 184: 12C instead of I^2C

Thank you for this remark. We have addressed the before mentioned typos, as well as other typos present in the paper. (lines 4,  227,  248, 379,  380)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the paper is interesting and current. The following comments are suggested:

1. The Introduction mixes motivation, subject, narrative review of literature, and goal, so I ask the authors to divide the Introduction into two independent sections, as follows:

– “1. Introduction”: (i) first paragraph – introduce the reader to the field, (ii) second paragraph – describe the subject of the paper, (iii) third paragraph – present the motivation, (iv) fourth paragraph – briefly describe the goal and potential contribution of the research, and (v) fifth paragraph – provide the structure of the paper according to sections.

NOTE: All statements in the Introduction must be referenced, especially lines 62-75!

– “2. State of the Art”: (i) first paragraph – describe in two to three sentences what the focus of the literature review is, i.e. what problems are being analyzed, (ii) second paragraph – analysis of current-relevant papers, (iii) third paragraph – summarize the literature review (everything that was not done in the analyzed papers represents a research gap, while part of it becomes the subject of this paper), (iv) fourth paragraph – finally, briefly describe the proposed approach, as well as the expected contribution.

2. For easier follow-up of the paper, Figures/Tables should be presented immediately below the paragraph in which they are first mentioned!

3. Section 3: Subsections A, B, and C are given, as well as 3.2, so work on the uniformity of the entire section!

4. Section 4: I suggest the authors provide basic information about the constructed hand in the form of a single paragraph, such as the ability to manipulate objects, the type and number of actuators, mechanical transmissions and sensors adopted, how and in what way the power and motion are transmitted from the actuators to the fingers…

5. There is no Discussion section, so I suggest the authors rename section 4 to “Results and Discussion”; further, within this section, dedicate the last paragraph to the limitations of the proposed system from the aspect of practical application.

6. There are typos, so I ask the authors to work on that.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are typos, so I ask the authors to work on that.

Author Response

1. The Introduction mixes motivation, subject, narrative review of literature, and goal, so I ask the authors to divide the Introduction into two independent sections, as follows:

– “1. Introduction”: (i) first paragraph – introduce the reader to the field, (ii) second paragraph – describe the subject of the paper, (iii) third paragraph – present the motivation, (iv) fourth paragraph – briefly describe the goal and potential contribution of the research, and (v) fifth paragraph – provide the structure of the paper according to sections.

 

– “2. State of the Art”: (i) first paragraph – describe in two to three sentences what the focus of the literature review is, i.e. what problems are being analyzed, (ii) second paragraph – analysis of current-relevant papers, (iii) third paragraph – summarize the literature review (everything that was not done in the analyzed papers represents a research gap, while part of it becomes the subject of this paper), (iv) fourth paragraph – finally, briefly describe the proposed approach, as well as the expected contribution.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have divided the introduction section into two sections (lines 16, 28-41, 59-89, 141-160).

 

 

2. For easier follow-up of the paper, Figures/Tables should be presented immediately below the paragraph in which they are first mentioned!

We thank the reviewer for bringing this to our attention. We have made sure every Figure/Table is presented immediately below the paragraph in which they are first mentioned. The figures and tables that were reorganized are: Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 6, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 14, and Table 1.

 

3. Section 3: Subsections A, B, and C are given, as well as 3.2, so work on the uniformity of the entire section!

We thank the reviewer for this observation. The uniformity of the section has been addressed (line 230, 317, 335, 353).

 

4. Section 4: I suggest the authors provide basic information about the constructed hand in the form of a single paragraph, such as the ability to manipulate objects, the type and number of actuators, mechanical transmissions and sensors adopted, how and in what way the power and motion are transmitted from the actuators to the fingers…

We appreciate the reviewers’ suggestion and have added a paragraph to section four, detailing the proposed system’s mechanical information (lines 398-405).

The assembled hand comprises five independently actuated fingers, each driven by a single MG996R servo motor mounted in the hand base. Motion is transmitted from the servo horns to the finger joints via fishing line tendons, which were selected over textile cord to minimize friction and elastic compliance. Each finger is returned to its open position by a passive spring mechanism, resulting in a normally open configuration that closes upon servo actuation. Power and control signals are routed from the embedded electronics to the servo motors via direct wiring, with the Arduino Nano generating PWM signals to command each servo independently.

 

5. There is no Discussion section, so I suggest the authors rename section 4 to “Results and Discussion”; further, within this section, dedicate the last paragraph to the limitations of the proposed system from the aspect of practical application.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have dully renamed the section title, as well as added a last paragraph going over the proposed system’s limitations (lines 463-476).

Finally, several limitations of the proposed system should be acknowledged in the context of practical application. First, the inherent challenge of isolating individual finger activations from surface EMG electrodes introduces crosstalk, particularly during synergistic finger movements, which may reduce the reliability of independent finger control in unconstrained use. Second, the measured maximum holding strength, ranging from 1.75 N to 4.07 N across fingers, and the minimum gripping distance, ranging from 22 mm to 49 mm, impose practical constraints on the range of objects and tasks the hand can accommodate. Third, the robustness of the system to real-world signal variability, such as electrode displacement, muscle fatigue, perspiration, and inter-subject differences, was not evaluated in this work, and performance degradation under these conditions remains an open question. These limitations highlight important directions for future development, including the exploration of more selective electrode configurations, mechanical redesign to improve force output and gripping range, and systematic evaluation across a broader population of users and task scenarios.

 

6. There are typos, so I ask the authors to work on that.

Thank you for this remark. We have addressed the typos present in the paper (lines 4,  227,  248, 379,  380).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a teleoperation system for a prosthetic hand capable of sensing and controlling the movement of individual fingers separately.

The video added as supplementary material is certainly interesting as it provides a practical demonstration of the proposed system. However, this reviewer suggests:
1. Showing the electrode system positioned on the user's limb within the video
2. Adding a slide listing the title of the paper and the authors
3. Adding a slide presenting the proposed approach
In this way, the video is not simply a demonstration of the proposed application but becomes relevant scientific content that complements this contribution.

This reviewer provides a series of comments below:
- Independent multi-finger actuation, as these authors are proposing, is a much-discussed topic in the prosthetics literature. On the one hand, it is interesting to try to technologically replicate the complex kinematics of the human hand; on the other hand, it has never been established whether this is necessary for the manipulation of everyday objects. Therefore, the usefulness of such computationally complex systems in a real-world system is questionable. The authors should further discuss the proposed application and perhaps expand the range of applications to fields other than prosthetics. In teleoperation, it may be more convenient to replicate fine movements even using more computational resources.
- Report numerical results in the abstract.
- The introduction should therefore broaden the scope of applications so as not to focus solely on prosthetics.
- The authors note that sEMG is the most commonly used interface for converting user intentions into high-level control actions for prosthetic systems. However, to reduce the physical and cognitive workload required of users, recent efforts are underway to integrate vision systems onboard prosthetics with the aim of assessing the context and operating semi-autonomously. 10.1016/j.cviu.2026.104669
The use of vision also simplifies complications resulting from fatigue and sweating, which can occur during prolonged use. The authors should therefore discuss these aspects more thoroughly in justifying and motivating the rationale behind this paper.
- The authors' choice to place the electrodes at specific anatomical points on the forearm, on the one hand, allows for monitoring the muscle activity of individual finger flexors; on the other, it limits its applicability in a realistic setting with amputees. Amputation could lead to the removal of portions of muscle that the authors defined as necessary for estimating individual finger flexion-extension, making this system unusable. The authors should therefore at least discuss this aspect in the paper.
- Section 3 is very rich in technical and technological details, which, in my opinion, do not constitute a scientific contribution unless properly discussed with respect to the literature. The authors should better highlight the design choices they made to overcome limitations in the literature and add scientific value to this paper, which is not intended to be a technical report of what the authors have implemented.
- Before section 4, this Reviewer recommends adding an "Experimental Evaluation" or "Experiments" section in which the authors explain the experimental protocol (how many participants and what they were asked to do) and the performance metrics calculated to evaluate the quality of the proposed approach.

Author Response

1. This paper presents a teleoperation system for a prosthetic hand capable of sensing and controlling the movement of individual fingers separately.

The video added as supplementary material is certainly interesting as it provides a practical demonstration of the proposed system. However, this reviewer suggests:
1. Showing the electrode system positioned on the user's limb within the video
2. Adding a slide listing the title of the paper and the authors
3. Adding a slide presenting the proposed approach
In this way, the video is not simply a demonstration of the proposed application but becomes relevant scientific content that complements this contribution.

Thank you for your valuable suggestions regarding the supplementary video. The video has been revised to include a title slide with the paper title and authors, a slide presenting the proposed approach, and a short segment showing the placement of the sEMG electrodes on the user’s forearm before the demonstration.

2. 
   Independent multi-finger actuation, as these authors are proposing, is a much-discussed topic in the prosthetics literature. On the one hand, it is interesting to try to technologically replicate the complex kinematics of the human hand; on the other hand, it has never been established whether this is necessary for the manipulation of everyday objects. Therefore, the usefulness of such computationally complex systems in a real-world system is questionable. The authors should further discuss the proposed application and perhaps expand the range of applications to fields other than prosthetics. In teleoperation, it may be more convenient to replicate fine movements even using more computational resources.

We deeply value the reviewer’s suggestions. We have added a paragraph to the introduction mentioning more applications our proposed system could be used for. (lines 28 to 41)

This paper presents the design, implementation, and experimental validation of a complete EMG-driven robotic hand system capable of independent per-finger actuation in real time. The proposed system integrates a custom analog and digital signal conditioning pipeline for surface electromyography (sEMG), a computationally efficient state-machine control framework, and a fully assembled tendon-driven mechanical hand platform, all deployed on resource-constrained embedded hardware. While the system is motivated by and evaluated in the context of prosthetic hand replacement, the underlying framework is broadly applicable to any domain requiring intuitive, myoelectric-driven multi-finger control. In teleoperation, replicating fine hand movements remotely is highly valuable for tasks in hazardous environments, remote surgery, and dexterous manipulation, where the availability of greater computational resources further relaxes the constraints inherent to embedded prosthetic platforms. Rehabilitation robotics represents a further application domain, where EMG-driven devices can support motor relearning and assist patients with residual neuromuscular function.

3. 
   Report numerical results in the abstract.

We appreciate the reviewers suggestion, and have added numerical results in the abstract. (lines 8-12)

Reliable control of robotic hands using residual muscle activity is challenging due to low-amplitude myoelectric signals, susceptibility to noise, and the need for real-time actuation. This paper presents a myoelectric-controlled robotic hand capable of voluntary independent finger motion. Surface myoelectric signals from the forearm are processed via amplification, filtering, and digital analysis to enable accurate detection of muscle activity. The system achieves independent and simultaneous actuation of five fingers using a tendon-driven, servo-actuated mechanism in a lightweight ABS structure. Experimental evaluation demonstrates finger actuation delays ranging from 294 ms to 630 ms, maximum holding strengths between 1.75 N and 4.07 N, and minimum gripping distances between 22 mm and 49 mm across all five fingers, with peak motor currents remaining below 0.7 A. Results validate consistent muscle activity detection, successful execution of individual and combined finger movements, and the robustness of the proposed design.

4. 
   The introduction should therefore broaden the scope of applications so as not to focus solely on prosthetics.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. This concern was also raised in Comment 2, and we refer the reviewer to our response there. In summary, we have broadened the scope of the introduction to explicitly include teleoperation and rehabilitation robotics as target application domains, and have acknowledged the open debate regarding the necessity of independent multi-finger control for everyday manipulation tasks. (lines 50-82 and 141-152)

5. 
   The authors note that sEMG is the most commonly used interface for converting user intentions into high-level control actions for prosthetic systems. However, to reduce the physical and cognitive workload required of users, recent efforts are underway to integrate vision systems onboard prosthetics with the aim of assessing the context and operating semi-autonomously. 10.1016/j.cviu.2026.104669
   The use of vision also simplifies complications resulting from fatigue and sweating, which can occur during prolonged use. The authors should therefore discuss these aspects more thoroughly in justifying and motivating the rationale behind this paper.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and for providing the reference. We have added a discussion of vision-based control approaches to the State of the Art section, acknowledging their potential to reduce physical and cognitive workload and to mitigate performance degradation caused by fatigue and perspiration during prolonged use. We further clarify why sEMG remains the adopted interface in this work, justifying our design choice in the context of the broader control landscape. (lines 97-105)

In recognition of these limitations, recent research has explored the integration of onboard vision systems into prosthetic platforms as complementary or alternative control modality. By assessing environmental context, vision-based approaches can reduce the physical and cognitive demands placed on the user and mitigate performance degradation associated with prolonged sEMG use, such as muscle fatigue and perspiration-induced electrode impedance changes \cite{visionref}. Nevertheless, sEMG-based control remains the most widely adopted interface in both research and clinical settings due to its non-invasive nature, direct correspondence with neuromuscular intent, and established integration with embedded prosthetic hardware.

6. 
   The authors' choice to place the electrodes at specific anatomical points on the forearm, on the one hand, allows for monitoring the muscle activity of individual finger flexors; on the other, it limits its applicability in a realistic setting with amputees. Amputation could lead to the removal of portions of muscle that the authors defined as necessary for estimating individual finger flexion-extension, making this system unusable. The authors should therefore at least discuss this aspect in the paper.

We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We have acknowledged the fact that some amputees may struggle to use the proposed system and have made it clear in the article the limitations. (lines 472-476)

Furthermore, the electrode placement strategy adopted in this work targets specific anatomical landmarks on the intact forearm, which may not be directly transferable to amputee users where residual muscle volume and anatomy vary considerably depending on amputation level and individual morphology.

7. 
   Section 3 is very rich in technical and technological details, which, in my opinion, do not constitute a scientific contribution unless properly discussed with respect to the literature. The authors should better highlight the design choices they made to overcome limitations in the literature and add scientific value to this paper, which is not intended to be a technical report of what the authors have implemented.

Thank you for your comment. We have added a paragraphin system overview section highlighting the rationale behind our design choices. (lines 212-220)

The system design integrates carefully tuned analog and digital signal conditioning with finite-state machine-based control algorithms. This combination enables reliable capture and interpretation of sEMG signals on a compact microcontroller platform, allowing independent multi-finger actuation with near real-time response. By relying on deterministic, low-complexity algorithms instead of computationally intensive approaches such as neural networks, the proposed design achieves precise finger movements while maintaining minimal hardware requirements. These design choices address common challenges in the literature, including signal noise, latency, and the difficulty of implementing robust control on small embedded platforms.

                8.Before section 4, this Reviewer recommends adding an "Experimental Evaluation" or "Experiments" section in which the authors explain the experimental protocol (how many participants and what they were asked to do) and the performance metrics calculated to evaluate the quality of the proposed approach.

Thank you for your suggestion. We have added this information  at the beginning of the Results chapter, detailing the experimental protocol, the number of participants, the movement tasks performed. (lines 430 – 436)

Experimental evaluation was conducted on five able-bodied participants, namely the authors of this work. While this represents a limited sample, the primary objective of the evaluation was to validate the correct operation of the signal acquisition, processing, and actuation pipeline rather than to assess generalization across a broader population. Each participant was instructed to reproduce a standardized sequence of finger movements, including individual finger flexion, combined finger motions, and full-hand opening and closing. Each sequence was repeated ten times to evaluate repeatability and robustness using the electrode placement described in Section X.                                                                

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all the points raised by the reviewer with great rigor. The manuscript has been significantly improved. I only have a few minor comments.

1. The authors should ensure that the text in the caption of Figure 7 is clearly readable.

2. The text added to Figure 10 should be clearly readable.

3. The text in the diagram of Figure 13 should be fully readable at 100% zoom. If not, the font size should be increased accordingly.

Overall Evaluation: Minor Revision.

Author Response

1. The authors should ensure that the text in the caption of Figure 7 is clearly readable. 

Thank you for your feedback. The caption of Figure 7 has been revised in the updated manuscript to ensure that the text is clearly readable. 

 

1. The text added to Figure 10 should be clearly readable. 

Thank you for your comment, the text in Figure 10 has been revised 

 

1. The text in the diagram of Figure 13 should be fully readable at 100% zoom. If not, the font size should be increased accordingly. 

We thank the reviewer for the comment. The text in the diagram of Figure 13 has been adjusted to ensure full readability at 100% zoom, with the font size increased where necessary. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have reorganized the paper in accordance with previous comments. However, within the newly formed text, some claims are not referenced, so I ask the authors to work on this.

1. Introduction: I ask the authors to reference the claims within lines 33-41 and 53-55.


2. Introduction (line 97): “In recognition of these limitations, recent research has explored…” What research? Provide references.

3. State of the Art (lines 102-105, 106-110, 112-115): References are missing, so I ask the authors to work on this.

Author Response

1. Introduction: I ask the authors to reference the claims within lines 33-41 and 53-55.


We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. References have been added to support the claims in lines 39, 41, and 56 in the Introduction section of the revised manuscript. 
 
2. Introduction (line 97): “In recognition of these limitations, recent research has explored…” What research? Provide references. 

We thank the reviewer for the comment; new references are provided for line 97 localized in the State-of-the-Art section (line 99). 

3. 
   
    State of the Art (lines 102-105, 106-110, 112-115): References are missing, so I ask the authors to work on this. 
   Thank you for your observation. We have added the references to the lines mentioned in the State-of-the-Art section (lines 105, 108, 110). 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No other comments. The authors addressed all the points raised in the previous review round.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the valuable feedback