Next Article in Journal
Design and Implementation of a Passive Autoranging Circuit for Hybrid FBG-PZT Photonic Current Transducer
Next Article in Special Issue
Design Path for a Social Robot for Emotional Communication for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)
Previous Article in Journal
An Imbalanced Generative Adversarial Network-Based Approach for Network Intrusion Detection in an Imbalanced Dataset
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Multirobot System in an Assisted Home Environment to Support the Elderly in Their Daily Lives
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Non Linear Control System for Humanoid Robot to Perform Body Language Movements

Sensors 2023, 23(1), 552; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23010552
by Juan Manuel Gomez-Quispe 1, Gustavo Pérez-Zuñiga 1,*, Diego Arce 1, Fiorella Urbina 1, Sareli Gibaja 2, Renato Paredes 2 and Francisco Cuellar 1
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sensors 2023, 23(1), 552; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23010552
Submission received: 28 October 2022 / Revised: 21 December 2022 / Accepted: 23 December 2022 / Published: 3 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Social Robots and Applications)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, an implementation of a nonlinear controller for the tracking of trajectories and a profile of speeds that execute the movements of the arms and head of a humanoid robot based on the mathematical model is proposed. In my view, both of the theoretical descriptions and experimental results in the article are desirable. However, there still exists several problems, which will make your paper more competitive if you can address:

 

1. A concise summary makes a paper much better. The abstract part of this paper is complex, so it is suggested to refine the language to describe more specific results from a quantitative point of view.

2. The background content of the introduction is too long, so it is suggested to reasonably refine it according to the content of the article. At the same time, it is necessary to add a summary of the experimental results of this paper.

3. In reference 23-26 cited in this paper, the motion accuracy and speed of the manipulator are mentioned. Therefore, it is suggested to add comparative experiments related to the control scheme in this paper and other control schemes to make your paper more convincing.

4. Please explain the graphs and tables in the text as necessary, such as Figure 19, so that the reader can understand your text better.

5. Planning for future research is best mentioned in the article, which can give readers or other researchers a guidance for related work.

6. Please check whether the described contents have corresponded to the related tabular data. For example, there is an error in "Figure 9" in 2.2. Please review the article again and correct the minor errors in the article.

7. Pay attention to the uniform formatting of the paper. For example, the case of the reference title should be consistent.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your valuable comments to improve our paper.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, three different control laws are implemented to the arms and head of a humanoid Robot. In general, the work is well written but there are a few flaws that need to be addressed in detail:

 

- The literature survey is incomplete. There is not included any reference about Backstepping  and Sliding mode contol schemes.

- It is missing the \dot{q} in mathematical model (3).

- For sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, for the sake of a more comprehensive information of the proposal,  it should include mathematical details.

- It should include more details of the dynamic model (3). For example, there are not described the D, h, c and Df matrices as well as their corresponding dimensions. 

-In section 4.2, it is not described the Lyapunov function used.

- It is not described the controls tunning.

- There is not any mathematical demostration of the controls' convergence.  

- The format of presented figures (Figure 5, 8,-15, 17-20, 22, 24, 26, 28) should be improved.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your valuable comments to improve our paper.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for the authors' effort to make the modification.

Reviewer 2 Report

The present document has been improved, it is recommended to standardize the figures 22, 24, 26, 28 with respect to the previous figures.

Back to TopTop