Estimation and Correlation Analysis of Lower Limb Joint Angles Based on Surface Electromyography
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments:
The research project is based on the prediction of the joint angles based on the surface electromyography signals employing several feature extraction methods. The research project is really interesting and supported with experimental data.
Major comments:
The description of the techniques for signal preprocessing, feature extraction, prediction network and cross-validation should be rewritten in a more clear and synthetic form.
Make sure to report only the equations which are strictly necessary for the understanding of the article and to correctly describe all variables reported. To make the article easier to read consider, for instance, to omit or summarize the ELM prediction equations (8-15) since are a rewritten form of equations taken from article [24] and are not maybe so necessary for the overall understanding of the article. Consider also to reduce as possible the use of abbreviations which make the article difficult to follow.
Observing Fig. 17, could you explain why fast walking has greater RMSE value than fast knee extension and flexion?
Do you have an idea of how much time is required by the ELM system to provide a solution?
Are the measurements influenced by temperature or sweat change?
Could you compare the obtained RMSE values with state-of-the-art articles/devices?
Minor comments:
Minor comments have been reported in the attached pdf.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper is very interesting and the study was correctly conducted but I have just one major comment: where is the discussion/conclusions of this work? In the last section, the authors only listed the deficiencies of their study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made considerable changes in implementing the suggestions and the comments of the reviewers. Hence, the article has been improved.
However, consider to perform some minor corrections as reported:
Please consider to write the labels of all graphs as in these two examples:
Time t [ms]
Signal amplitude A [mV]
specifying the extended name, the symbol and the measurement unit between square brackets of the variable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the discussion Section, the authors added a summery of the paper but they did not add what I asked for: an interpretation and a discussion of their results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
I don’t have any additional points that need to be addressed.
