Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. This manuscript conducts experiments to demonstrate hand function in conjunction with a tactile sensor array. Is the device able to utilize the sensor array for adaptive control of active grasping?
2. In grasping variety experiments, this manuscript realizes finger grasping by manually adjusting the air pressure value. Is it possible to realize the output of suitable grasping force for different grasping objects by utilizing sensor arrays?
3. In section 4.2 and 4.3, the manuscript analyzed the results of the experiment but lacked systematic conclusions. It is suggested to add relevant content.
4. It is recommended to optimize the diagram of the third chapter.
5. The introduction is supposed to be expanded to include more descriptions of previous methods and provide more references.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper introduces a soft–rigid hybrid anthropomorphic robotic hand that is low-cost, easy to fabricate using consumer-grade tools (FDM and molding), and designed for tactile sensor integration. The authors provide a comprehensive description of the design, manufacturing process, and functional evaluation, including the integration of a resistive tactile sensor array. The topic is highly relevant for the soft robotics community, particularly for applications in education, prototyping, and tactile-enabled manipulation.

 

While the technical implementation is thorough and well-illustrated, the presentation of the novelty and research contribution needs to be significantly improved, especially in the Introduction section.

 

Strengths:

• Modular and reproducible design with fully open-source components
• Accessible fabrication methods with minimal tooling
• Functional demonstrations including reflexive sensor-based grasping
• Clear documentation of joint-level mechanics and soft actuation behavior

 

Major Weaknesses:

1. Lack of explicit novelty statement in the Introduction

The Introduction section provides a broad overview of related works but fails to clearly articulate what the specific novelty and scientific contributions of this work are. Given that both the mechanical structure and the sensor are based on existing concepts or commercial components, it is essential to highlight how this work advances the state of the art through integration, accessibility, control simplification, or evaluation methodology.

Please add a dedicated sentences in the Introduction that explicitly addresses the following:

• What problem the paper addresses (e.g., cost barriers, lack of sensor-ready soft hands)
• What is the proposed solution
• Where the novelty lies (e.g., in integration, design optimization, open-source reproducibility, or educational utility).

 

2. Sensor evaluation remains limited

While a tactile sensor array is integrated, quantitative data such as sensitivity, resolution, and response time are not sufficiently presented. This weakens the validation of its effectiveness.

 

3. Reproducibility of actuators is not resolved

Acknowledgment of manufacturing variability is appreciated, but practical guidance or process control to improve variability is needed.

 

4. No comparative benchmarking

Without a performance comparison to existing systems (even simple commercial or academic hands), the practical value of the system is hard to judge.

 

Minor Comments:

Refine English grammar and usage for improving readability.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have appropriately addressed the reviewer comments, and I believe the paper is suitable for acceptance.