All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The manuscript has been greatly improved after the revision. I suggest its acceptance now.
No Comments
No Comments
No Comments
In this version, most of my concerns have been addressed carefully. I have no more critical comments for this paper. One minor suggestion is to revise the figures more clear in higher resolutions (eps or PDF).
The manuscript has been greatly improved. I agree to accept it.
I think now it is more scientific because the authors had changed their statistic methods.
Greatly improved.
The manuscript has been greatly improved.
Both reviewers thinks the topic is interesting. However they raised serious concern for the statistical method applied. The authors should try other choices to make the conclusion solid. In addition, some discussions for the biological meaning are necessary.
No comments
The motivation of the experiment design should be breifly introduced in each step
No comments
In this paper, the authors proposed a study about the bilateral functional differences of the lower limb muscles in standing and walking. The following lists my comments.
1. The motivation. The purpose of this study and the rationale of the experimental design should be introduced more carefully. To show the (potential) benefits of the finding differences of low limb muscles, the paper should give more reasons and applications for these differences.
2. The possible reason of the difference. It is good to find out the difference between the muscular activities of the bilateral lower extremities. It is better to list some reasons for the difference.
3. In the discussion, the authors discussed the difference in different people, such as old or young. For robot application, it can be designed according some principles. In this sense, the former comment 2 is important for revealing some tricks of human standing and walking.
4. The statistics. It is strange for me that the p-values are 0. I think it should be <10e-3 or smaller. The authors should carefully check all the p-values.
5. The English should be polished before publication and the expression should be revised carefully for improve the clarity. The figures should be present in higher resolution, such as the legends in Figure 3 (b) and (c).
Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript. This study recorded sEMG signals from tibialis anterior, soleus, medial gastrocnemius and lateral gastrocnemius muscles of bilateral lower extremities for static steady state and dynamic steady state in order to quantitatively evaluate the sEMG activity asymmetry of bilateral muscles in lower extremities during functional tasks. I think the issue is meaningful and the method by using sEMG is suitable, simple and convenient.
However, I think the manuscript suffered for one serious limit: The statistical method applied in this manuscript is not appropriate. Spearman Correlation analysis is a method that is used to discover the strength of a link between two variables instead of one variable. In this manuscript, the muscle activities for left leg or right leg are the same variable rather than two variables. To analyzing whether themselves have correlation or not is a meaningless issue. Again, comparison and the correlation of different muscle activities are meaningless. I guess logistic regression may be helpful for solving this issue.
Minor suggestion:
1. English: The manuscript needs careful editing English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.
2. The results should be scientifically presented, for example, more raw data should be showed in the tables.
I think the statistical method applied in this manuscript is not appropriate. Spearman Correlation analysis is a method that is used to discover the strength of a link between two variables instead of one variable. In this manuscript, the muscle activities for left leg or right leg are the same variable rather than two variables. To analyzing whether themselves have correlation or not is a meaningless issue. Again, comparison and the correlation of different muscle activities are meaningless. I guess logistic regression may be helpful for solving this issue.
Because of the unsuitable statistic method, I don't think the results have a good meaning for solving the issue that the author focus.
Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript. This study recorded sEMG signals from tibialis anterior, soleus, medial gastrocnemius and lateral gastrocnemius muscles of bilateral lower extremities for static steady state and dynamic steady state in order to quantitatively evaluate the sEMG activity asymmetry of bilateral muscles in lower extremities during functional tasks. I think the issue is meaningful and the method by using sEMG is suitable, simple and convenient.
However, I think the manuscript suffered for one serious limit: The statistical method applied in this manuscript is not appropriate. Spearman Correlation analysis is a method that is used to discover the strength of a link between two variables instead of one variable. In this manuscript, the muscle activities for left leg or right leg are the same variable rather than two variables. To analyzing whether themselves have correlation or not is a meaningless issue. Again, comparison and the correlation of different muscle activities are meaningless. I guess logistic regression may be helpful for solving this issue.
Minor suggestion:
1. English: The manuscript needs careful editing English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.
2. The results should be scientifically presented, for example, more raw data should be showed in the tables.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.