Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Regarding the diagrams, the author needs to pay attention to formatting, such as Table 1 having a font size significantly larger than the main text, which clearly does not comply with academic paper standards.

The author mentioned that over 6.8 million people in the U.S. use assistive devices to enhance their mobility, but did not provide specific citations or data sources.

Existing graspers rarely mimic human hand movements for grabbing and carrying objects. The author needs to elaborate on the specific problems or challenges in this area.

The goal of the research is to offer a new three-fingered grasper design for daily living assistance, but it does not mention the innovative aspects or advantages of this design. It is recommended to outline the innovations of the design for a better understanding of its uniqueness.

The author states that the designed grasper can handle 90 different shapes, sizes, weights, and textures of everyday items, yet I did not see these examples or detailed diagrams. Some concrete examples should be provided.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Upon reviewing the submitted manuscript, I have identified several areas of concern that need to be addressed to enhance the overall quality and contribution of the paper. My main concerns revolve around the originality of the work, reproducibility of the results, clarity in the experimental methodology, and the presentation quality of the figures.

Firstly, I am worried about the originality and distinctiveness of the paper. The manuscript does not clearly articulate the unique benefits or advancements it offers in comparison to existing literature in the field. For a paper to stand out and contribute significantly to the academic community, it is imperative that the authors delineate how their work advances or adds new knowledge to what has already been published. I strongly recommend that the authors provide a more detailed comparison with related works and highlight the novel contributions of their study more explicitly.

Secondly, the reproducibility of the results presented in the paper is a significant concern. The lack of topological information about the prototype, including dimensions and connections among the parts as well as the basic calculation of Mobility, kinematic characteristics analisys (Velocity/forces), hinders the ability of other researchers to replicate the study. Reproducibility is a cornerstone of scientific research, and as such, it is crucial that the authors include comprehensive details about the prototype design to ensure that the research can be accurately reproduced and verified by others in the field.

Furthermore, the methodology section of the paper does not adequately describe how the experiments were conducted and evaluated. For the readers and reviewers to fully understand and assess the validity of the findings, it is essential that the experimental setup, data collection, and evaluation criteria are described in a clear and methodical manner. Providing a more thorough explanation of the experimental design and evaluation process will greatly improve the credibility and reliability of the research outcomes.

Lastly, the visual presentation of the figures in the manuscript can be enhanced. I recommend the use of vectorized figures to improve the clarity and quality of the graphical representations. Vectorized figures offer better scalability and resolution, which are crucial for conveying complex information effectively. Upgrading the figures to vector formats will not only improve their appearance but also make the data more accessible and easier to interpret for the readers.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English quality is good.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript stands out for its comprehensive literature review, which sets a solid foundation for understanding the context and significance of the presented research. The writing style is notably clear and readable, making it accessible to a wide audience.

 

The document presents a significant advancement in the field of Assistive Daily Livings (ADLs) through the development of a novel three-fingered gripper. This innovation is meticulously designed to address the challenges associated with handling essential ADL objects of varying shapes, sizes, weights, and textures.

 

One of the manuscript's strengths lies in its detailed explanation of the gripper's design principles and engineering considerations. The authors demonstrate a deep understanding of the subject matter, presenting complex concepts in a straightforward manner. Additionally, the emphasis on utilizing 3D printing technology for manufacturing ensures both efficiency and accessibility in replicating the gripper design.

 

Furthermore, the manuscript effectively communicates the versatility of the gripper, which extends beyond conventional grasping to include pinching and securely holding lightweight objects. Its adaptability to different object shapes and weights, along with controlled grasping forces, enhances its utility across diverse scenarios.

 

The evaluation section provides robust evidence of the gripper's performance through rigorous load and usability tests. Despite challenges encountered with heavy-weight objects, the gripper demonstrates commendable performance across various textures. User feedback underscores the gripper's simplicity, a crucial aspect in designing assistive technology.

 

In conclusion, this well-written manuscript not only presents a significant technological advancement but also contributes to the broader discourse on enhancing individuals' independence and quality of life through assistive robotics. Its readability and clarity make it a valuable addition to the literature in the field of ADLs.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made corresponding modifications and basically meets the requirements.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The author has made corresponding modifications and basically meets the requirements.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

all suggestions given to the authors during the first round of review were met.