Analysis of Available Solutions for the Improvement of Body Posture in Chairs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this article, the authors tried to identify the optimal solution among various alternatives for improving the body posture in chairs. The AHP method was used to compare the criteria for the solutions while the PUGH matrix was used to identify the best fit solution. Even though the findings of the study seem useful to the scientific community, the manuscript lacks focus and hence demands significant improvements in terms of both content and clarity. In my opinion, the manuscript requires a major revision prior to considering it for publication in the journal.  My specific comments on the manuscript are appended below:

a. In the introduction, why did the authors mention about Scheuermann’s kyphosis? It is not clear, how is this related to the discussion.

b. The novelty of the work should be clearly defined in the introduction effectively articulating the findings of the previous literature and the literature gap.  

c. Overall, the results and discussion part need considerable improvement. The authors need to strengthen their arguments with relevant literature/ supportive evidence.

d. It is unclear how the authors performed the AHP analysis to estimate the priority. On what basis were the criteria for the solution fixed?

e. While performing the PUGH analysis, how were the values assigned to each criterion involved in decision-making? The authors need to explain this clearly and in detail with respect to the selection of the optimal solution for improving the body posture as well as the selection of the optimal sensor.

f. The authors selected 4 different sensors for analysis. However, there is no clear justification for the selection of these sensors in the manuscript.

g. The accuracy of the identified optimal solution may be validated with experimental results.

Author Response

Dear reviewers, we would like to thank you for your valuable comments and meaningful observations. After revising the paper according to your requirements, we are sure you helped in improving our paper significantly. Answers to your questions are provided below and related modifications within the paper are introduced appropriately.

Reviewer 1

1. In the introduction, why did the authors mention about Scheuermann’s kyphosis? It is not clear, how is this related to the discussion.

Answer: Upon further pondering, we have decided to remove that section.

2. The novelty of the work should be clearly defined in the introduction effectively articulating the findings of the previous literature and the literature gap.

Answer: The novelty of the work is now presented

3. Overall, the results and discussion part need considerable improvement. The authors need to strengthen their arguments with relevant literature/ supportive evidence.

Answer: The results and discussion parts were improved by further detailing the methodology used, presenting the individual characteristics of the analyzed solutions, and strengthening the arguments

4. It is unclear how the authors performed the AHP analysis to estimate the priority. On what basis were the criteria for the solution fixed?

Answer: More details and explanations presented in the revised version

5. While performing the PUGH analysis, how were the values assigned to each criterion involved in decision-making? The authors need to explain this clearly and in detail with respect to the selection of the optimal solution for improving the body posture as well as the selection of the optimal sensor.

Answer: The procedure of quantitively analyzing the values of each criterion is presented in the revised version

6. The authors selected 4 different sensors for analysis. However, there is no clear justification for the selection of these sensors in the manuscript.

Answer: The justification of choosing the 4 types of sensors is based on the analyzed systems proposed in literature of available commercially

7. The accuracy of the identified optimal solution may be validated with experimental results.

Answer: The identified solution is set to be implemented inside the research group “Advance Mechatronic Systems” from TUCN

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I just had the chance to read your work. I believe it raises interesting insights into the body of knowledge. Nevertheless, I have many concerns and recommendations that should be addressed to improve the manuscript.

General comment:

• The topic is very relevant given the current working postures and their consequences on WRMSDs. However, some sections are not developed enough, and also the reference list is too short for a scientific paper.

Specific comments:

•  Along with the paper, there is confusion between symptoms and health problems/disorders. E.g., headaches or back pain are symptoms (of a possible health problem); on the other hand, biomechanical changes in the spine or digestive disorders (...) are health problems. Regarding the biomechanical changes, the introduction of the following paper may help you support your work:
• Gabriel, A. T., Quaresma, C., Secca, M. F. & Vieira, P. (2016). “Vertebral metrics application of a non-invasive system to analyse vertebrae position using two seating platforms”. BIODEVICES 2016 - 9th International Conference on Biomedical Electronics and Devices, Proceedings; Part of 9th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies, BIOSTEC 2016. SciTePress - Science and Technology Publications, p. 235-240 6 p.
• The abstract should enumerate all criteria considered/applied in the study.
• Introduction: in my opinion, the background should be more precise.
• Also, in the introduction: sitting for long periods is a risk factor even with a good posture (not only with an incorrect sitting position).
• The objective of the study is not clear:
• Is this a research paper focused on the existing solutions to improve posture in chairs? Or the objective is to compare some solutions that will enhance posture in chairs? First case: a research paper needs a detailed description of the methodology. Second case: What were the criteria for choosing the solutions compared?
• When you say "to find which solution is preferable" (page 1, line 37), do you mean in terms of what? How good is the solution for improving posture? If it is the case, I do not understand how cost, manufacturability, and privacy (and even portability) affect the quality of the posture improvement.
• I am afraid you are comparing the activation systems, not the chair. Otherwise, you must describe each chair and system included in your study in detail.
• Some references are not updated / recent. For example, regarding the SYPEC system, there are publications before 2012. Please check (there are more):
• Martins, L., Ribeiro, B., Almeida, R. M., Pereira, H., Jesus, M. A. D. A. P. D., Quaresma, C. R. P. & Vieira, P. M. C. (2016). "Optimization of sitting posture classification based on anthropometric data". HEALTHINF 2016 - 9th International Conference on Health Informatics, Proceedings; Part of 9th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies, BIOSTEC 2016. SciTePress - Science and Technology Publications, p. 406-413 8 p.
• Martins, L., Ribeiro, B., Pereira, H., Almeida, R., Costa, J., Quaresma, C. R. P., Jesus, M. A. D. A. P. D. & Vieira, P. (2015). “Real-time fuzzy monitoring of sitting posture: Development of a new prototype and a new posture classification algorithm to detect postural transitions”. Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies - 8th International Joint Conference, BIOSTEC 2015, Revised Selected Papers. Springer-Verlag, Vol. 574. p. 424-439 16 p. (Communications in Computer and Information Science; vol. 574).
• Page 4, line 144: I did not understand what is "the chosen situation".
• Conclusion: You have concluded that the ideal solution for developing a posture detection and correction chair is to find the mass center and upper body tilt. This conclusion is about the methodology used, not the chair/system. I have had the same issues before: the objective is not well stated at the beginning of the manuscript, and I do not understand how cost and other parameters are relevant to that end.

I hope you can address the comments/suggestions since this topic is relevant to modern society. Especially with the remote work, we have experienced since the pandemic problem.

Best of luck!

Author Response

Dear reviewers, we would like to thank you for your valuable comments and meaningful observations. After revising the paper according to your requirements, we are sure you helped in improving our paper significantly. Answers to your questions are provided below and related modifications within the paper are introduced appropriately.

Reviewer 2

1. There is confusion between symptoms and health problems/disorders

Answer: The sentence was modified (line 37-40).

2. The abstract should enumerate all criteria considered/applied in the study.

Answer: The abstract now contains the criteria as proposed.

3. Introduction: the background should be more precise; sitting for long periods is a risk factor even with a good posture (not only with an incorrect sitting position).

Answer: The sentence was revised (35-37).

4. The objective of the study is not clear

Answer:  The objective of the paper is now presented in a more detailed and specific manner

5. Some references are not updated / recent

Answer: The references were updated

6. Page 4, line 144: I did not understand what is "the chosen situation".

Answer: The sentence was removed.

7. Conclusion: You have concluded that the ideal solution for developing a posture detection and correction chair is to find the mass center and upper body tilt. This conclusion is about the methodology used, not the chair/system. I have had the same issues before: the objective is not well stated at the beginning of the manuscript, and I do not understand how cost and other parameters are relevant to that end.

Answer: The concluded solution was determined with respect to multiple aspects regarding the manufacturability processes and requirements for smart furniture. In this way, we took into consideration the overall price of an integrated solution. All the details regarding the objectives of the study, methodology used, and specific characteristics are now presented in the revised version

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is generally interesting in its premise, but has significant methodological flaws. First, the research methodology is not described. Only information that AHP method was used - which is insufficient to determine the nature of the research. There are many inaccuracies in the text - e.g. the list of criteria is introduced in the text: "Bulleted lists look like this:" But there is no information on how it was determined. In Table 1. AHP Analysis for the chosen criteria, due to sloppy preparation - there is a lack of separation of the criteria from the summary of their Priority. Accuracy to 5 decimal places is not justified. In Figure 2. Graphic of importance for the solutions criteria - are written with different letter size.  Inside Figure 3. Graphic of importance for the sensors criteria is a title visual representation of Table 3. Vague procedures are followed by a jump to conclusions. The de facto comparable solutions are not characterized. Due to the above, the paper in its current form is unpublishable, which is a pity because it could be an interesting solution to the problem. 

Author Response

Dear reviewers, we would like to thank you for your valuable comments and meaningful observations. After revising the paper according to your requirements, we are sure you helped in improving our paper significantly. Answers to your questions are provided below and related modifications within the paper are introduced appropriately.

Reviewer 3

1. The research methodology is not described: Only information that AHP method was used - which is insufficient to determine the nature of the research

Answer:  The research methodology is now presented

2. The list of criteria is introduced in the text: "Bulleted lists look like this:" But there is no information on how it was determined.

Answer:  That part was revised and modified.

3. In Table 1 there is a lack of separation of the criteria from the summary of their Priority. Accuracy to 5 decimal places is not justified.

Answer:  The table was modified.

4. In Figure 2 - written with different letter size

Answer:  The figure was removed.

5. Inside Figure 3. Graphic of importance for the sensors criteria is a title visual representation of Table 3

Answer:  The figure was removed.

6. Vague procedures are followed by a jump to conclusions

Answer:  The procedures utilized in this study are now presented in more detail  

7. The de facto comparable solutions are not characterized

Answer:  The individual characteristics and properties of the analyzed solutions are now presented

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have satisfactorily addressed the queries. The manuscript may be considered for publication after grammar and spell-check.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we would like to thank you for your valuable comments and support throughout the reviewing the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

In my opinion, the changes improved your document. Please, check if reference 2 and reference 15 are the same (authors, title, conference, and year are exactly the same).

2. Lucena, R.; Quaresma, C.; Jesus, A.; Vieira, P. Intelligent chair sensor-actuator - A novel sensor type for seated posture detection and correction. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Biomedical Electronics and Devices (BIODEVICES-2012), Vilamoura, Algarve, Portugal, 1 February 2012 through 4 February 2012.

15. Lucena, R., Quaresma, C., Jesus, A., & Vieira, P. Intelligent Chair Sensor-actuator - A Novel Sensor Type for Seated Posture Detection and Correction. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Biomedical Electronics and Devices, 2012.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we would like to thank you for your valuable comments and support throughout the reviewing the manuscript. Below are the answers to your questions and the modifications within the paper are introduced appropriately.

 Reviewer 2

In my opinion, the changes improved your document. Please, check if reference 2 and reference 15 are the same (authors, title, conference, and year are exactly the same).

1. Lucena, R.; Quaresma, C.; Jesus, A.; Vieira, P. Intelligent chair sensor-actuator - A novel sensor type for seated posture detection and correction. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Biomedical Electronics and Devices (BIODEVICES-2012), Vilamoura, Algarve, Portugal, 1 February 2012 through 4 February 2012.
2. Lucena, R., Quaresma, C., Jesus, A., & Vieira, P. Intelligent Chair Sensor-actuator - A Novel Sensor Type for Seated Posture Detection and Correction. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Biomedical Electronics and Devices, 2012.

Answer: The references were corrected in the manuscript. Due to the extensive work into addressing all the major revisions from the previous reviewing round, we missed this correction.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article shows significant improvement; however, there is still room for improvement. Insufficient seems to be: description of the method - this is simply not there - who did the evaluation and how? The features that were evaluated have to be guessed from the descriptions of exemplary equipment - e.g. Measurement range, considered the most important, may mean both the range of the measured factor, but also the dimensions of the phenomenon. The double marking of graphs recommended for improvement was comically corrected - by removing the figure caption! - instead of the meaningless graph heading as suggested - visual representation of table 3. 

Text fragments are not full sentences-e.g., Consistency Ratio CR: 0.042-from the new paragraph after the table are left uncommented. 

This makes me to do not change my opinion. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we would like to thank you for your valuable comments and support throughout the reviewing the manuscript. Below are the answers to your questions and the modifications within the paper are introduced appropriately.

Reviewer 3

The article shows significant improvement; however, there is still room for improvement. Insufficient seems to be: description of the method - this is simply not there - who did the evaluation and how? The features that were evaluated have to be guessed from the descriptions of exemplary equipment - e.g. Measurement range, considered the most important, may mean both the range of the measured factor, but also the dimensions of the phenomenon. The double marking of graphs recommended for improvement was comically corrected - by removing the figure caption! - instead of the meaningless graph heading as suggested - visual representation of table 3.

Text fragments are not full sentences-e.g., Consistency Ratio CR: 0.042-from the new paragraph after the table are left uncommented.

This makes me to do not change my opinion.

Answer: The methodology used in this paper is now properly stated and described as suggested. Furthermore, we described the process of quantitatively analyzing the criteria involved in the AHP method and by whom. The values of the parameters involved in the PUGH matrix regarding the measurement range and its significance are now explained. Regarding the figures, we decided to remove them in order to avoid expressing the same piece of information two times (table result and figure). The fragments regarding the Consistency Ratio and Principal eigen value are presented in sentences as suggested