Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors has focused to the structure of the prosthesis, which must be based on human anatomy to create a more natural looking prosthesis, and therefore more usable. So, they designed a motorized prosthetic (myoelectric) hand with bones, ligaments, tendons, and muscles based on the skeletal system of the human hand. Developed myoelectric hand (only thumb and index finger) is capable of controlling angle and stiffness of both fingers joints by multiple extensor and flexor muscles, like humans.

The paper is well written, the style and grammatic is OK, the topics is interesting, but there are some important issues (practical results) which has to be added, by my opinion, in the paper to be present enough valuable information regarding the design of the myoelectric hand. And, they need to be compared with the needs of the other human hand prosthesis or human hand itself: 

1. Page 9, on the top: There are missing two curves in Figure 9 (orange and red) in upper right most part of the figure to make complete comparison  between human and myoelectric finger.
2. The most important missing information are the forces which can be produced by this two fingers (thumb and index) and comparison to appropriate human hand fingers' force.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her helpful comments and suggestions.

We attached our responses as pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

With better technical measurements, the design is nice to be presented as a testing platform for hand exoskeltons. The range of motion and the speed of each joint need to be provided.

The sensory setup is not explained at all.

Very difficult to digest this work as a contribution to prosthetic hand literature. It needs to be benchmarked, and a proper comparison with other work on prosthetic hands needs to be carried out.

The starting sentence of the abstract is not making sense from a scientific point of view.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her helpful comments and suggestions. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors improved and clarified all parts of the texts I had asked to improve. So, I have no more comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The authors have taken my comments into consideration.

They improved the abstract, and the range of motion is now provided.