Personalization of a Human Body Model Using Subject-Specific Dimensions for Designing Clothing Patterns
, Hana Čechová 1, Tomasz Bońkowski 2, Gabriela Kavalířová 3, Petra Špottová 3, Viola Hampejsová 3 and Hong Meng 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments:
Overall, this is an interesting and original research paper. The authors collected anthropometric data from Czech and Chinese participants with the aim to identify variations in measurements to a scaled reference model that is based on mean European anthropometric data. The authors then present an algorithm that they developed to personalise the scaled reference model using the manual body measurements. These measurements were based on typical measurements used to design protective clothing.
Whilst the manuscript provides original data and model, there are some shortcomings in the arguments and focus of the manuscript. It is clear that the anthropometric study was included to provide a rationale for the need to personalise human models in clothing development. However, the manuscript is not coherent and the focus is lost throughout. The title and ‘Featured Application’ section indicate that the manuscript is about the development of subject-specific body models, however the results and discussion focus strongly on the anthropometric study. In contrast to the title, the purpose of the study states in lines 64-66: “The purpose of the paper is to measure subject-specific anthropometric dimensions coming from the clothing industry for designing protective garments [15] for different population groups.” A clear aim of the study needs to be defined that aligns with the title and could be broken down into two objectives.
It is also not fully clear how/if the personalisation model has been validated.
There are a lot of figure and table. Consider whether all of them are essential.
The academic writing of the manuscript needs to be improved to enhance the flow and clarity of the manuscript. I would recommend hiring a professional proof-reader.
Specific comments:
Introduction:
Lines 27-29: Citation needed
Line 30: Please provide some examples of applications.
Line 32-37: Very long sentence – hard to follow for reader. Please break up into smaller sentences.
Line 37: PPE: Please spell out words followed by (PPE), as it is the first time it is mentioned in the main text.
Line 51: Please provide more details of reference model (how it was developed).
Lines 54-56: Is the scaled approach really “perfect” if it only provides an average and therefore does not represent any individual in a population?
Materials and methods:
How were participants recruited?
Why were adults from Czech Republic and China used for this study? Need justification.
What were participants wearing when measurements were taken?
Where the operators taking measurements trained?
What measures were taken to ensure accuracy and reduce inter-operator variability?
Discussion:
The discussion should refer to existing research and consider the advantages and disadvantages of this approach compared to others (e.g., 3D body scanning).
Line 87, 91, 94, 99: N should be a small n and written in italics.
Line 94: I think adolescence would be a better term to use than “teens”, as 10-12-year-olds are technically not teenagers.
Table 1: Caption states that min. and max. are given, however they are not provided in the table. Please correct.
Line 105: How exactly were they measured? What were the participants wearing? What posture were they in?
Table 2: The description of the body measurements are not very meaningful. How are these defined and identified on the body? Lines 109-142 following the table describe the measurements in detail. This is hard to follow in the text for the reader. I strongly recommend incorporating these descriptions into the table.
Line 151: Add (refer section 2.3.1) after ‘reference model’.
Lines 167-168: Reference needed to provide evidence for validation.
Line 181: Not clear why these measurements are “usually available” – please clarify and provide reference.
Line 201: Please state name of author(s) after ‘referring to the work by’.
Line 202: Change ‘Table 2’ to Table 3.
Line 353: Please state name of author(s) after ‘published by’.
Line 358: Remove duplicate word ‘is’.
Table 5 and 6: Consider combining these tables.
Table 5: Please remove third sentence. It is a repetition. Please add (a) and (m) after age and mass, respectively. It is not clear why there are two different values for each at top and bottom of table. Please clarify.
Lines 400-410: This could be expressed much more succinct. Please amend, as it currently does not flow. Also, consider whether all of these figures are needed. Think about what exactly you are trying to show the reader here.
Lines 413-414: Please state how the body models have been validated.
Discussion:
Line 464: Are you trying to make the point that all PPE should be custom-made / made-to-measure? If so, make it clearer and consider implications for industry.
Conclusion:
Lines 491-493: How applicable is this personalisation approach in industry?
Please move limitations (Lines 458-465) here and from that provide recommendations for future research.
Author Response
The point-by-point replies are in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The theme is aligned with today’s demands of the clothing industry: digitalisation/personalisation and individualisation of their product.
Some facts are unclear:
- The purpose of this research is to obtain personalised human bodies. These bodies can be used to design personalised garments. Why are mentioned personal protective garments? Children and teenagers are not suitable target groups for this category of garments.
- 1. shows human body dimensions measurement. These are not clothing dimensions. It can be said that these are dimensions used to design clothing patterns.
- The body height is not measuring with a tape measure. The body height is a rectilinear body measurement that is measured with Martin Anthropometer.
- Page 4... the body heights are not measured with the tape measure
Page 16... Fig.10... Something is strange with the middle figure (heads and neck area)
Page 17. Fig.12...At this stage, the bust prominence is visible. A female figure has to have wider hips than a male figure
Page 18... Fig.14+Fig.15 It looks like a male figure, not a female (bust prominence, the shape of the hips)
Author Response
The point-by-point replies are in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for addressing my comments. I feel that the manuscript is much improved. The changes have substantially improved the clarity and readability of the manuscript and made the impact of the research more obvious. The methodological queries raised in my report have been clarified.
There are some minor typos that should be corrected before publication:
- Line 32: Please change “…human body model with realistic shape is a powerful tools used in…” to “…human body models with realistic shape are a powerful tool used in…”
- Line 423: Please correct typo “measured”
- Line 478: Please correct typo “measured”
- Line 511: Please correct typo “healthcare”
- Line 515-516: Please correct: either “subjects have” or “subject has”. Also correct typo “might”
- Line 519: Please change “does” to “do”
Author Response
The authors gratefully thank the reviewer for the comments in both rounds. All additional comments (typos) from the second review addressed by the reviewer (lines 32, 423, 478, 511, 515-516 and 519) were considered and corrected in the manuscript by the green color.
