Simulation of Spinal Cord Reflexes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Use spice models of actual BJTs that are commercially available.

I suggest that the generic BJTs presented in simulation be characterized to show the I-V relationships. 

By using spice models of commercially available BJTs, we can better quantify the results and potentially implement these on an on-board module. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor grammatical errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Title: Spinal Cord Reflexes Simulation with LTSpice.

Comments/Suggestions:

-Simulating circuits is not a research contribution, it is rather a development type of contribution.

-A few simulation tools can be used to simulate electronic circuits and not only LTSpice.

-Most of now a day electronic circuits/systems are designed and manufactured using MOSFET rather than bipolar technology.

-In summary, the manuscript is lacking contribution and somehow hard to understand. Therefore authors must write it in clear way such that it is understandable by majority of electrical engineering professional.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English need to be improved to make it easily understandable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have modeled spinal cord reflexes characterised by the mathematical equations given in section 2 and worked out their transistor level implementations in section 3 and presented results of LTSPICE simukations in section 4. This reiewer would like to make the flollowing comments on this manuscript:

1. In the opinion of this reiewer, the title of the paper is not only incorrect, it is even misleading! The current title apears to imply as if LTSPICE has been somehow used to model the spinal cord reflexes, whereas it has only been used as a simuation tool to test the workability of the transistor-level models of section 3. The title needs to be changed.

2. Even the captions of the circuit diagrams of Fig. Fig.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 14 and Fig. 17 have ALL been called `LTSPICE scheme diagrams', why? Shouldn't they have been identified by the functions they are supposed to simulate?

3. Similarly, all the transient responses of the barious circuits given in Fig. 7-11, 13, 14, 15, and 17-22 have been called as `LTSPICE schematic diagrams'. This too is not appropriate and needs to be changed.

4,  Perhaps an expreimental verification, rather than only the LTSPICE simulations everywhere, would have been more convincing proof of the the correctness and the vaidity of the electronic circuit models of section 3, but this aspect is completely missing.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Careful proof reading of the final version of the manuscript is needed to eliminate some obvious grammatical errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded to my comments appropriately and the revisions carried out are satisfactory from my view point.

Author Response

Author's reply to the Round 2 of revisions: 

Reviewer 3 wrote:

"The authors have responded to my comments appropriately and the revisions carried out are satisfactory from my view point."

The other reviewers had no further comment for this second round. 

Hence, the paper rests in the last format without any highlights this time. 

Authors wish to express their gratitude and thanks to reviewers for their effort and their useful recommendations that allow us to improve our paper.  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx