BCI Wheelchair Control Using Expert System Classifying EEG Signals Based on Power Spectrum Estimation and Nervous Tics Detection
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled “Expert system classifying EEG signals based on power spectrum estimation with the detection of nerve tics for the purpose of wheelchair control using BCI technology” proposes a BCI system based on artificial neural networks for the analysis of EEG signals containing facial expressions as control commands. Moreover, the signals are heavily corrupted by nerve tics-caused artifacts.
The manuscript is well-written and easy to follow. The presented study is interesting and has some potential practical application.
However, here are some comments I would like the authors to address before the manuscript is considered for publication:
1. The title, although very precise, is somewhat long. Please consider shortening it to be more approachable. Something like: “BCI wheelchair control using expert system classifying EEG signals based on power spectrum estimation and nerve tics detection” might be one example.
2. Please define BCI and EEG abbreviations in the Abstract for clarity and consistency.
3. This study applies neural network-based classification to 1D input data (power spectrum and signal). However, the application of deep CNNs with various 2D time-frequency signal representations has become a hot research topic recently. Did the authors consider this type of approach (for the present or future work) as it may provide some additional information for this application? I would like to suggest the authors briefly discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this alternative approach compared to the one in the study in the Introduction section and also supplement the introductory part with some of recent studies on this topic to briefly illustrate the state-of-the-art performances of the CNNs and alternative time-frequency representations in EEG signal classification and other different applications. Please consider briefly mentioning the following papers for illustration purposes: 10.1007/s10044-020-00921-5, 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3139850, 10.1109/TNNLS.2020.3008938.
4. In the Conclusions section, please elaborate in more detail on some of the (technical) limitations of the presented study.
5. In the Conclusions section, please also provide some more specific directions for future work.
Author Response
Responses to comments from Reviewer # 1
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for the time you spent reading our article and familiarizing yourself with our research results. Below we provide answers to your questions.
Your opinion: The manuscript entitled “Expert system classifying EEG signals based on power spectrum estimation with the detection of nerve tics for the purpose of wheelchair control using BCI technology” proposes a BCI system based on artificial neural networks for the analysis of EEG signals containing facial expressions as control commands. Moreover, the signals are heavily corrupted by nerve tics-caused artifacts.
Our answer: Thank you for your feedback. We agree with the opinion.
Your opinion: The manuscript is well-written and easy to follow. The presented study is interesting and has some potential practical application.
Our answer: Thank you for your feedback. We agree with the opinion.
Your opinion: However, here are some comments I would like the authors to address before the manuscript is considered for publication: 1. The title, although very precise, is somewhat long. Please consider shortening it to be more approachable. Something like: “BCI wheelchair control using expert system classifying EEG signals based on power spectrum estimation and nerve tics detection” might be one example.
Our answer: We have shortened the title of the article.
Your opinion: 2. Please define BCI and EEG abbreviations in the Abstract for clarity and consistency.
Our answer: We have made appropriate corrections in the introduction.
Your opinion: 3. This study applies neural network-based classification to 1D input data (power spectrum and signal). However, the application of deep CNNs with various 2D time-frequency signal representations has become a hot research topic recently. Did the authors consider this type of approach (for the present or future work) as it may provide some additional information for this application? I would like to suggest the authors briefly discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this alternative approach compared to the one in the study in the Introduction section and also supplement the introductory part with some of recent studies on this topic to briefly illustrate the state-of-the-art performances of the CNNs and alternative time-frequency representations in EEG signal classification and other different applications. Please consider briefly mentioning the following papers for illustration purposes: 10.1007/s10044-020-00921-5,10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3139850, 10.1109/TNNLS.2020.3008938.
Our answer: These articles have been referenced in the publication. The pros and cons of the approach you mentioned are discussed. Thank you for the correct supplementation.
Your opinion: 4. In the Conclusions section, please elaborate in more detail on some of the (technical) limitations of the presented study.
Our answer: Conclusions have been expanded, the suggested items have been introduced.
Your opinion: 5. In the Conclusions section, please also provide some more specific directions for future work.
Our answer: Conclusions have been expanded, the suggested items have been introduced.
Best regards,
Szczepan Paszkiel
Dawid Pawuś
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The present research proposes an expert system to categorize the EEG Signals to distinguish the nerve tics of the patients to help them control their wheelchairs using brain-computer interface technology. Considering the importance of the study, several concerns should be addressed by the respected authors to enhance their study:
1. While the manuscript sounds scientific and clear most of the time, some repetitive, unclear, and informal sentences could be improved. I have highlighted some in the attached file. I believe that the best decision is to send the paper for proofreading to address these concerns.
2. The introduction section is lengthy in the current version. My suggestion is that only important parts of the study like the brief background of the study and the research gap are discussed in this section. Therefore, it is suggested the literature review is shifted to another section named the related works. This helps the introduction section to be concise and well-structured. Adding a table in the related work section summarizing the literature considering their contexts, methods and findings is beneficial.
3. The authors are encouraged to state the entire phrase before using any abbreviations. Adding an abbreviation section to the paper is also beneficial for readers to refer to when needed.
4. In 2. Presentation of Components, Methodology of Study and System, please mention the version of MATLAB software. Please also add the coding in the appendix since it helps other researchers to reproduce your experiments and make the manuscript’s results reproducible.
5. The Figures can be clearly designed by using a larger font size and providing further description in their notes or the text:
In Figure 2, please elaborate for the reader on the differences between green and white nodes in the note.
In Figure 15, please redesign it and explain what L and H matrices represent.
6. Please double-check all the equations. I found inconsistency for Eq1 in the text and the equation. I highlighted the issue in the attachment. Please also explain the parameters of Eq8.
7. In 6. Discussion of the Obtained Results, please compare the accuracy of the proposed classification system with the similar ones in previous studies. Please mention its pros and cons and suggest what can be done in the future to address its drawbacks. In lines 442 to 443, please elaborate on what the expectations are and how they are in line with the findings of the study.
8. In 7. Conclusions and Future Work, in line 467, please provide more details about the possibility of further research. Please also rewrite lines 481 to 484 to become clearer. I think the last paragraph (lines 485 to 487) can be removed.
9. Please improve the author contribution section as highlighted in the file.
10. Please include the ethics statements as the proposed expert system is examined on the patients.
Best wishes.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Responses to comments from Reviewer #2
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for the time you spent reading our article and familiarizing yourself with our research results. Below we provide answers to your questions.
Your opinion: The present research proposes an expert system to categorize the EEG Signals to distinguish the nerve tics of the patients to help them control their wheelchairs using brain-computer interface technology. Considering the importance of the study, several concerns should be addressed by the respected authors to enhance their study:
Our answer: Thank you for your feedback. We agree with your opinion.
Your opinion: 1. While the manuscript sounds scientific and clear most of the time, some repetitive, unclear, and informal sentences could be improved. I have highlighted some in the attached file. I believe that the best decision is to send the paper for proofreading to address these concerns.
Our answer: We have made appropriate corrections.
Your opinion: 2. The introduction section is lengthy in the current version. My suggestion is that only important parts of the study like the brief background of the study and the research gap are discussed in this section. Therefore, it is suggested the literature review is shifted to another section named the related works. This helps the introduction section to be concise and well-structured. Adding a table in the related work section summarizing the literature considering their contexts, methods and findings is beneficial.
Our answer: The changes have been incorporated. The Introduction section has been shortened.
Your opinion: 3. The authors are encouraged to state the entire phrase before using any abbreviations. Adding an abbreviation section to the paper is also beneficial for readers to refer to when needed.
Our answer: Thank you for your due consideration. This has been revised.
Your opinion: 4. In 2. Presentation of Components, Methodology of Study and System, please mention the version of MATLAB software. Please also add the coding in the appendix since it helps other researchers to reproduce your experiments and make the manuscript’s results reproducible.
Our answer: Matlab version has been completed. The codes will be made available:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jXM1-D7fK0ozcOPhDNYIiGqIbDawLsjL?usp=sharing
Your opinion: 5. The Figures can be clearly designed by using a larger font size and providing further description in their notes or the text:
In Figure 2, please elaborate for the reader on the differences between green and white nodes in the note.
In Figure 15, please redesign it and explain what L and H matrices represent.
Our answer: The legibility of Figures has been improved according to your recommendations.
Your opinion: 6. Please double-check all the equations. I found inconsistency for Eq1 in the text and the equation. I highlighted the issue in the attachment. Please also explain the parameters of Eq8.
Our answer: All equations have been checked and possible inconsistencies are explained in the text of the article.
Your opinion: 7. In 6. Discussion of the Obtained Results, please compare the accuracy of the proposed classification system with the similar ones in previous studies. Please mention its pros and cons and suggest what can be done in the future to address its drawbacks. In lines 442 to 443, please elaborate on what the expectations are and how they are in line with the findings of the study.
Our answer: These are very valuable comments. All the additions you suggest have been implemented in the work.
Your opinion: 8. In 7. Conclusions and Future Work, in line 467, please provide more details about the possibility of further research. Please also rewrite lines 481 to 484 to become clearer. I think the last paragraph (lines 485 to 487) can be removed.
Our answer: Conclusions have been expanded, the suggested items have been introduced.
Your opinion: 9. Please improve the author contribution section as highlighted in the file.
Our answer: We have made appropriate corrections.
Your opinion: 10. Please include the ethics statements as the proposed expert system is examined on the patients.
Our answer: These statements were not compiled in a traditional form, as they are only study participants, not strictly clinical patients. The conducted research does not bear the hallmarks of a medical experiment. They were not performed on medical equipment. Nevertheless, before participating in the measurements, each participant voluntarily joined them and was asked for oral consent in this regard. Each participant was also informed that the measurements would not be invasive in any way.
Best regards,
Szczepan Paszkiel
Dawid Pawuś
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed my comments, and the manuscript has been improved after revisions.
Author Response
Responses to comments from Reviewer # 1
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much again for the time you spent reading our article and familiarizing yourself with our research results. Thank you for finally accepting our work.
Best regards,
Szczepan Paszkiel
Dawid Pawuś
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Considering the improvement in revision 1, there are some remaining comments from the peer review that need the careful attention of the respected authors.
1. Although the manuscript commonly sounds scientific and clear, some repetitive, unclear, and informal sentences should be improved. Therefore, I encourage the authors to check the paper thoroughly to address these concerns. I highlighted some in the attachment: lines 59 and 500.
2. Please be neutral to any gender and replace "his" with "their" in line 65.
3. It was an informed decision to separate the introduction section from the related work section. I would suggest to the authors to add a table in the related work section summarizing the literature considering their contexts, methods, and findings. It could make your literature review more engaging for readers.
4. Please consider adding an abbreviation section to the paper as it could be beneficial for readers since they do not need to search throughout the paper to find a full term of an abbreviation.
5. It is useful that you added the code for MATLAB. Please explain in your article to the readers how they can access and use it.
6. Please reinclude the explanation for FE' in line 287.
7. In 6. Discussion of the Obtained Results, please compare the accuracy of the proposed classification system with the similar ones in previous studies. It makes the present work more engaging and highlights its importance.
8. A section named “Institutional Review Board Statement” should be added before the abbreviation and reference sections. In this section, you should add the Institutional Review Board Statement and approval number, if relevant to your study. You might choose to exclude this statement if the study did not require ethical approval. Please note that the Editorial Office might ask you for further information. Please add “The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of NAME OF INSTITUTE (protocol code XXX and date of approval).” for studies involving humans. OR “The animal study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of NAME OF INSTITUTE (protocol code XXX and date of approval).” for studies involving animals. OR “Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to REASON (please provide a detailed justification).” OR “Not applicable” for studies not involving humans or animals.
9. Please add a section named “Informed Consent Statement” and mention that “Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.”
Best wishes
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Responses to comments from Reviewer #2
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much again for the time you spent reading our article and familiarizing yourself with our research results. Below we provide answers to your questions.
Your opinion: 1. Although the manuscript commonly sounds scientific and clear, some repetitive, unclear, and informal sentences should be improved. Therefore, I encourage the authors to check the paper thoroughly to address these concerns. I highlighted some in the attachment: lines 59 and 500.
Our answer: You are completely right. We have corrected some ambiguities. Now the article is more understandable to readers.
Your opinion: 2. Please be neutral to any gender and replace "his" with "their" in line 65.
Our answer: Thank you for paying attention to this matter. Being neutral towards each gender is crucial in this type of work. We have made the correction according to your instructions.
Your opinion: 3. It was an informed decision to separate the introduction section from the related work section. I would suggest to the authors to add a table in the related work section summarizing the literature considering their contexts, methods, and findings. It could make your literature review more engaging for readers.
Our answer: Thank you for your opinion. We considered the corrections you suggested. Now the collection of related works is much more accessible and readable.
Your opinion: 4. Please consider adding an abbreviation section to the paper as it could be beneficial for readers since they do not need to search throughout the paper to find a full term of an abbreviation.
Our answer: Thank you for your valuable opinion. At the end of the paper, we introduced a section with the most important abbreviations used in the manuscript.
Your opinion: 5. It is useful that you added the code for MATLAB. Please explain in your article to the readers how they can access and use it.
Our answer: The code and instructions are available at the link: https://s.paszkiel.po.opole.pl/laboratorium-neuroscience/
Your opinion: 6. Please reinclude the explanation for FE' in line 287.
Our answer: We have made a correction, your comment has been taken into account.
Your opinion: 7. In 6. Discussion of the Obtained Results, please compare the accuracy of the proposed classification system with the similar ones in previous studies. It makes the present work more engaging and highlights its importance.
Our answer: Thank you for your opinion. We have made changes in this regard.
Your opinion: 8. A section named “Institutional Review Board Statement” should be added before the abbreviation and reference sections. In this section, you should add the Institutional Review Board Statement and approval number, if relevant to your study. You might choose to exclude this statement if the study did not require ethical approval. Please note that the Editorial Office might ask you for further information. Please add “The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of NAME OF INSTITUTE (protocol code XXX and date of approval).” for studies involving humans. OR “The animal study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of NAME OF INSTITUTE (protocol code XXX and date of approval).” for studies involving animals. OR “Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to REASON (please provide a detailed justification).” OR “Not applicable” for studies not involving humans or animals.
Our answer: Thank you for this extensive and valuable instruction. As our study was not a medical experiment, we created a new chapter informing the reader about this fact.
Your opinion: 9. Please add a section named “Informed Consent Statement” and mention that “Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.”
Our answer: Thank you for the instruction. We fully complied with it and created a new chapter at the end of the paper.
Best regards,
Szczepan Paszkiel
Dawid Pawuś
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
