Review Reports

Response to Reviewer X Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Can be improved

Is the research design appropriate?

Not applicable

Are the methods adequately described?

Not applicable

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: This manuscript describes a conventional pressure-sensitive rubber sheet fabricated in a shape that fits prosthetic legs and enables measurement of pressure over a wide range. It can be said that some improvements have been made at the level of product development, but the results are predictable, with few new findings, and the paper is not considered to be at the level of an academic paper.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Agree. It is not a new discovery to sense pressure using Velostat film and use it. However, as shown in Figure 1(b) and Figure 8, there is less noise inside the socket in contact with the body, and it is fabricated to enable linear data acquisition within individual pressure ranges. Accordingly, there is a difference in that it is possible to acquire improved data in Figure 13. In addition, in order to apply the sensor inside a wide and curved socket rather than a general small plane, the sensor was cut in a V shape as shown in Figure 3 and Table 3. Also, the fact that the same linear pressure data as before cutting can be acquired as shown in Figure 3(e), Figure 13(b), and Figure 14 can be argued as a new discovery developed from the existing research.

Comments 2: The appearance of the graphs and graph scaling, captions, and accuracy of the drawings are not up to the level of general academic papers. For example, the drawing on the left side of Fig. 2(a) does not explain which part of the prosthetic leg is viewed from which direction and what the black lines and dots on the bottom side are, making it difficult for readers to understand.

Response 2:  Thank you for pointing this out. Figure 2-(a) has been revised, and similar figures 4 have also been revised. – page number: 5,7

Comments 3: The vertical scale in Fig. 1-(b) does not match the caption.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. Figure 1(b) has been revised. – page number: 3

Comments 4: Regarding the fabrication method of Fig. 1(c), is the electrode foil simply adhered to the surface? How were the electrode foils 'attached' to the Velostat film? The fabrication method should be described properly.

Response 4: The outer surface was coated after electrode foil was placed on both sides of the Velostat film using adhesive film. This was added to the 126th line. – page number: 3

Thank you for your good review.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The quality of English Language is not suitable for an academic paper. The manuscript should be proofread by a native English speaker who is familiar with writing academic papers.

Response 1: I am willing to take the MDPI’s English Language Editing Services. Thank you.

5. Additional clarifications

To : editor

Greetings, I want to make sure that “Na-Yeon Park” is the first-author, “Su-Hong Eom” is the co-author, “Eung-Hyuk Lee” is the corresponding author. Thank you.

Response to Reviewer X Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: What the research hypotheses for the study were? Did the study confirm them? Were these results expected? This should be further elaborated at the end of the introduction.

Response 1: The hypothesis of the study is that if the fabricated sensor is applied inside the socket, it is easier to fabricate individually compared to existing sensors and has less noise for skin reactions, resulting in excellent detection performance. In addition, the same linear pressure sensing is possible by applying a sensor in a wide and curved area, not a small plane, by cutting V-shaped on the outside of the sensor. This was added to the 96th line in the introduction – page number: 3

Comments 2: Introduction, 34-37 sentences There may be errors in the content. Transfemoral prostheses are not used for the lower leg.

Response 2:  Thank you for pointing this out. I have accordingly modified the paragraph – page number: 1, line: 29th

Comments 3: General patient information is missing, only the table for Subject 1 is made, information about Subjects 2 and 3 is missing.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. This was revised by adding a subsection of 3.2.2. – page number: 11, line: 378

Comments 4: In the figures, sensor number 3 in the white socket and sensor number 3 in the red socket have different locations. The author must explain this part.

Response 4: The red socket is a simple prosthetic leg made for a non-amputee. The experimental prosthetic leg has a structure that is difficult to identify pressure changes at the lower part of the biceps femoris. Therefore, the sensor at the lower part of the biceps femoris was attached to the lower part of the knee joint to check the change in pressure in the vertical direction occurring at the lower part of the biceps femoris.

It is presented in the 386th line. -page number: 11

Thank you for your good review.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper

Response 1: I am willing to take the MDPI’s English Language Editing Services. Thank you.

Response to Reviewer X Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Can be improved

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:  Line 1: The authors should determine the type of article.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I would like to submit the type of article as 'article'. This has been forwarded to the editor.

Comments 2: The abstract is too long, which should be a maximum of about 200 words.

Response 2:  Thank you for pointing this out. The volume of Abstract has been reduced and revised.– page number: 1, line: 10th

Comments 3: Lines 127–132: I think you mean manuscript sections such as methods and results; that is right; if yes, please modify it.

Response 3: I have accordingly modified the paragraph – page number: 3, line: 96th

Comments 4: The main question addressed by the research.

Comments 5: It is a relevant topic for basic research.

Comments 6:  The specific improvements in methodology and subject area are

Response 6: It is not a new discovery to sense pressure using Velostat film and use it. However, as shown in Figure 1-(b) and Figure 8, there is less noise inside the socket in contact with the body, and it is fabricated to enable linear data acquisition within individual pressure ranges. Accordingly, it is possible to acquire improved data presented in Figure 13. In addition, in order to apply the sensor inside a wide and curved socket rather than a general small plane, the sensor was cut in a V shape as shown in Figure 3 and Table 3. Then, the fact that the same linear pressure data as before cutting can be acquired as shown in Figure 3-(e), Figure 13-(b), and Figure 14 can be argued as a new discovery developed from the existing research.

Comments 6-1: Could you write a section with the study design instead of lines 134–139?

Response 6-1: Thank you for pointing this out. I have accordingly modified the paragraph – page number: 3, line: 107th

Comments 6-2: Line 217: The authors start the paragraph “Professor Noor A. Osman et al. tried to check pressure..."; please write the scientist without the title, and where is this citation in the references? It is not number 29.

Response 6-2: Thank you for pointing this out. This is the reference of 28. It was misstated and corrected 29 to 28.– page number: 5, line: 195th

Comments 6-3: Could you move the participants’ details with the description to a subject sub-section in the initial material and methods section (lines 400–401) and table 4?

Response 6-3: This was revised by adding a subsection of 3.2.2.– page number: 11, line: 378th

Comments 6-4: Lines 400-01: Three participants are a limitation of the current study; please clarify.

Response 6-4: Thank you for pointing this out. Agree. This study confirmed whether the sensor fabricated through three subjects improved the problem and its applicability in the socket. Currently, the number of participants is small, but the confirmed possibilities were submitted to an external support agency. As a result, further research and experiments will be conducted through collaboration.

Comments 6-5: The procedures and experimental protocol are clear and well written

Comments 6-6: The authors should indicate whether the players’ written informed consent was obtained or not and if the study was authorized by the institution’s studies and research ethics committee.

Response 6-6: Yes, we have been approved by the research ethics committee along with the research support organization 'KOREC'. After that, the research was conducted and the consent of the participants was obtained. The ethics committee approval was forwarded to the editor. The IRB approval number is RERI-IRB-221130.

Comments 7: The results need more improvement; it is difficult for the reader. So, please add a result and discussion sections and move the results into the result section for more clarity.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. I have accordingly modified the paragraph – page number: 17, line: 544th

Comments 8: The conclusions are clear and address the aim of the study, but it is too long.

Response 8: I have accordingly modified the paragraph – page number: 17, line: 544th

Comments 9: The cited references are relevant to the research and appropriate.

Comments 10: If possible, write a separate section for limitations and future work for more clarity.

Response 10: I have accordingly modified the paragraph. This was additionally written in Chapter 4 Discussion. – page number: 17, line: 544th

Thank you for your good review.

Comments 11: Finally, this scientific work is very interesting and beneficial to the reader.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper

Response 1: I am willing to take the MDPI’s English Language Editing Services. Thank you.