Recent Advances in Myoelectric Control for Finger Prostheses for Multiple Finger Loss
, Artak Heboyan 2, Azeem Ul Yaqin Syed 3, Hai Anh Trinh 4,5, Pokpong Amornvit 6 and Dinesh Rokaya 7,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well prepared and up to standard as a normal paper in the journal. I have no further comment.
Author Response
Thank you for your positive comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors responded to all my previous requests, in the first submission of their paper.
Author Response
Thank you for your positive comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Paper is a review of recent methodologies of assesment impaired people by adding control of hand prothesis by means of myoelectric signal reception and processing. Authors are showed sources, they were used and papers selection criteria.
I do accept changes Authors provided and I do accept current structure of the paper with small exception. Authors should correct citation method. Citation is a part of sentence so instead "lorem ipsum. [1]" it sould be "lorem ipsum [1]."
Regarding remaining structure and contents it is acceptable.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Thank you for your positive comments. Corrections in the Manuscript for Reviewer 3 are highlighted in Green color.
Point 1: Paper is a review of recent methodologies of assesment impaired people by adding control of hand prothesis by means of myoelectric signal reception and processing. Authors are showed sources, they were used and papers selection criteria.
I do accept changes Authors provided and I do accept current structure of the paper with small exception. Authors should correct citation method. Citation is a part of sentence so instead "lorem ipsum. [1]" it sould be "lorem ipsum [1]."
Response 1: All citations are corrected.
Point 2: Regarding remaining structure and contents it is acceptable.
Response 2: Thank you for your positive response.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The quality of the paper has been improved. The content has been enriched. The paper is much better than before.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The quality of the paper has been improved. The content has been enriched. The paper is much better than before.
Response 1: Thank you for your positive comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. In your first Document with Responses, the Authors mentioned "
"Thank you for your positive comments. Corrections in the Manuscript for Reviewer 2 are highlighted in Green color." No green background in the manuscript.
2. As Reviewer 3 requested, the following information must be added:
Literature search
- Searching strategy - should include information: which databases, based on which keywords were searched (the authors mentioned some data but not enough);
- Inclusion/exclusion criteria: types of studies, languages, time periods - totally missing.
The authors tried to respond, but very superficial. No inclusion/exclusion criteria of the paper were described, no period of selection for the references, etc. Moreover I suggest a separate 2nd section, namely 2. Methodology, where all the information related to selection criteria of the references to be presented. A flow chart will summarise it in a best way. Otherwise, the current Introduction section presents itself as a kind of "mixture" between specialised information, data search methodology and the purpose of the study.
3. The authors mention as the las line of Introduction section the aim of their study. It is too short, poor in presenting why their paper is better than others in the topic, what new aspects differentiate this Review from the others with same topic, what new aspects are highlighted, etc.
Always the AIM of the study must to reveal, as better as possible the novelty character of the research or, at least, the special aspects of it, so as to attract the attention of those interested in that specific subject.
4. In the actual 2. Signals and Finger Motor Function section (Future 3 section), I suggest to make a Table summarising the most important producers who provide protheses, country of manufacturer, type of protheses, observations (most important data about those type of protheses, etc. I am sure that authors can find also more columns with relevant information to be presented in the Table I suggested.
5. English must be carefully revised, avoiding repetition and reshaping some confusing phrases (i.e. L56 and L 157 sentences begin both with "They").
6. Figure 3 must be explained - how it works / how it is interpreted. It's not enough for Authors to understand what they write. Readers have to understand it, as well.
7. All abbreviations used in the text must be explained in full at their first usage. Please check all abbreviations and complete accordingly.
8. More NEW/RECENT References must be added, taking into account than more than 30 of them (more than half) are older/much older than 5 years.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Thank you for your positive comments. Corrections in the Manuscript for Reviewer 2 are highlighted in Yellow color.
Point 1:
Literature search
- Searching strategy - should include information: which databases, based on which keywords were searched (the authors mentioned some data but not enough);
Response 2: The searching strategy details with relevant keywords are added in the Abstract and in Page 3-4.
- Inclusion/exclusion criteria: types of studies, languages, time periods - totally missing.
Response 1: Inclusion and/ exclusion criteria are added.
The authors tried to respond, but very superficial. No inclusion/exclusion criteria of the paper were described, no period of selection for the references, etc. Moreover, I suggest a separate 2nd section, namely 2. Methodology, where all the information related to selection criteria of the references to be presented. A flow chart will summarise it in a best way. Otherwise, the current Introduction section presents itself as a kind of "mixture" between specialised information, data search methodology and the purpose of the study.
Response 1: Inclusion and/ exclusion criteria are added. Methodology is separated. Introduction is edited.
- The authors mention as the las line of Introduction section the aim of their study. It is too short, poor in presenting why their paper is better than others in the topic, what new aspects differentiate this Review from the others with same topic, what new aspects are highlighted, etc.
Always the AIM of the study must to reveal, as better as possible the novelty character of the research or, at least, the special aspects of it, so as to attract the attention of those interested in that specific subject.
Response 1: The aim of this review is made clearer by explaining the novelty character and highlight of the review.
- In the actual 2. Signals and Finger Motor Function section (Future 3 section), I suggest to make a Table summarising the most important producers who provide protheses, country of manufacturer, type of protheses, observations (most important data about those type of protheses, etc. I am sure that authors can find also more columns with relevant information to be presented in the Table I suggested.
Response 1: Table 2 is added showing the details of the protheses, country of manufacturer, type of protheses, etc.
- English must be carefully revised, avoiding repetition and reshaping some confusing phrases (i.e. L56 and L 157 sentences begin both with "They").
Response 1: English correction is done throughout the manuscript. L156 and 157 (current L167-169) are corrected.
- Figure 3 must be explained - how it works / how it is interpreted. It's not enough for Authors to understand what they write. Readers have to understand it, as well.
Response 1: The Figure 3 is well explained.
- All abbreviations used in the text must be explained in full at their first usage. Please check all abbreviations and complete accordingly.
Response 1: Abbreviations are checked carefully. And explained in full at the first usage.
- More NEW/RECENT References must be added, taking into account than more than 30 of them (more than half) are older/much older than 5 years.
Response 1: New References are added. Older references were added to show the developments of Myoelectric prostheses as mentioned by the other reviewer.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Unfortunately, the authors did not follow the reviewer's guidelines.
The discussion is still missing.
Unfortunately, the authors did not base their article on the latest literature, innovative facts are omitted. Dental implants have been removed from the keywords - even though they are presented in the manuscript - unfortunately only in figures - no information in the text.
In this form, the article is not suitable for publication in MDPI Applied Sciences.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Thank you for your positive comments. Corrections in the Manuscript for Reviewer 3 are highlighted in Green color.
Point 1: Unfortunately, the authors did not follow the reviewer's guidelines.
The discussion is still missing.
Response 1: Discussion are added with latest references according to the reviewers comments.
Point 2: Unfortunately, the authors did not base their article on the latest literature, innovative facts are omitted.
Response 2: Latest literatures are added.
Point 3: Dental implants have been removed from the keywords - even though they are presented in the manuscript - unfortunately only in figures - no information in the text.
Response 3: Dental implants is added in the keywords. Details are explained in the text.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
I do accept modified article and feel satisfied with changes, authors were made. Now it is no doubt - this is review
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Point 1: I do accept modified article and feel satisfied with changes, authors were made. Now it is no doubt - this is review.
Response 1: Thank you for your positive comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors responded to all my requests.
Reviewer 3 Report
The discussion section is still missing. I propose, as in the template on the journal's website, to create a separate section (no. 4) "Discussion". The authors consistently avoid applying the suggested corrections, which makes the article in this form chaotic. The results are presented as I suppose in the understanding of the authors in the "discussion" section.
Despite the addition of information about implants in the text and the addition of keyword dental implants - the information in the manuscript still does not directly show that they are dental implants. Please provide more information. What was the mechanism of anchoring dentures on implants? What abutments are used?
After the improvement and the corrections of the manuscript, it could reach the standards of Applied sciences and could be accepted in its future form, which includes corrections suggested by the reviewer.
