Review and Analysis of Platform-Related Performance of Rehabilitation Lower Limb Exoskeletons

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see the document

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

see the document

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a good review paper. But, some unclear points still remained for publication.

1. In line 131, why are the papers surveyed in the paper limited after 2016? It is not '5 years' or '10 years'. Does it have a special meaning or intention? If so, please add it.

2. About Fig. 3, the order presented in the main text is wrong. Figs.6 and 8 are not mentioned in the main text. All figures should be mentioned in the text in order.

3. In the caption of Fig. 3, I think 'Single support' and 'Double support' mean single leg support and double leg support, respectively. However, they don't match the figure. Single leg support phase seems in 10%-50% and 60-100%, while double support phase seems in 0-10% and 50-60%.

4. In line 629, I cannot grasp the meaning of 'the role of mechanical admittance and the mechanical admittance'. Is it just duplicated?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "Review and Analysis of Platform-Related Performance of Rehabilitation Lower Limb Exoskeletons." The article provides a comprehensive review of factors that influence the effectiveness of powered lower limb exoskeletons (PLLEs) used for rehabilitation of patients with motor impairments, and offers well-needed practical information for exoskeleton developers.

The manuscript is well structured, clearly written, and adds importantly to the existing knowledge in the domain of rehabilitation PLLEs. I would like to commend the authors on their thorough work, and only have some minor comments in hopes of helping them refine the report.

A) Content- and structure-related issues

A1. Lines 17-18: The effectiveness of powered lower limb exoskeletons in assisting people with locomotion difficulties is pretty new to most people - it is misleading to state that it is "not new to anyone."

A2. Figure 1: Although this is not a systematic review, it would be very valuable if you could provide the number of papers considered in each stage of paper selection.

A3. The structure of section 3 is somewhat confusing: It appears as if the topic of "Performance criteria" is interrupted by "3.2. Robot-assisted rehabilitation and target population." I suggest collapsing 3.1 and 3.3 into a single sub-section following the content of 3.2.

A4. Figure 7(a): Personally, I find it very difficult to understand the plot with the x-axis representing "Range (degree);" please provide the needed information on how to interpret it in the caption.

A5. The term "pilot" appears four-times in the manuscript (Lines 94, 804, 809, Table 2). From the context, one could assume that it refers to the patient/user/wearer; however, this would need to be explicitly explained (or the term should be changed to patient/user/wearer) for clarity.

A6. Lines 664-665: Please provide a reference to support the claim "... these methods in traditional therapies have been widely used and have proved be efficient in achieving positive GAR outcomes."

A7. All figures that were directly taken from existing publications (i.e., Figures 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9) require author approval for reproduction.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

B) Wording-related issues

B1. Line 62: "In our opinion This can be mainly because of a number of reasons." - I suggest rephrasing to "In our opinion, this can be mainly because of the following reasons."

B2. Lines 206-207: "... provide modulated therapeutic solutions for recovery and training programs ..." - It is unclear what is meant by "modulated", please rephrase.

B3. Line 440: "skin breakout" - the study reports "skin breakdown"

B4. Line 553: "series-elastic formation of tendons" - I suggest rephrasing to "series-elastic behavior of tendons"

B5. The abbreviation "w.r.t." was new to me. Perhaps it would make sense to explain it for audiences like myself.

B6. Line 657: viscose -> viscous

B7. Line 678: "... posterior to movements" - is the term "posterior" appropriate here?

B8. Line 706: "environment conditions" -> "environmental conditions"

B9. Line 717: "a step to relax the patient from relying on CoM transfer" -> "a step to relieve the patient of relying on CoM transfer"

B10. Line 727: "provide additive functionalities for human locomotion" -> "provide additional functionalities for human locomotion"

C) Duplicated abbreviation explanations

C1. Lines 213 & 224: central nervous system (CNS)

C2. Lines 161 & 295: center of mass (CoM)

C3. Lines 162 & 294: center of pressure (CoP)

D) Most important grammar, spelling, and other minor issues

D1. Several instances of inappropriate or superfluous prepositions throughout the manuscript.

D2. Several instances of a lacking "the" throughout the manuscript.

D3. Unnecessary commas after in-text citations throughout the manuscript (e.g., Lines 224, 519, 607, 682, etc.)

D4. Abbreviated verbs: E.g., "don't" (Line 41, 321, 651), "it's" (Lines 363, 662)

D5. Capitalisation (e.g., Lines 62, 107, 114, 141, 487, etc.)

D6. Line 786: Please add brackets to the in-text citation: "As discussed in 4 ..."

D7. Line 104: Duplicated "in section"

D8. Line 142: I suggest replacing the term "hard" with "difficult"

D9. The term "ergonomy" should be replaced by "ergonomics"

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf