Cardiopulmonary Activity Monitoring Using Millimeter Wave Radars

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

the article entitled: Cardiopulmonary Activity Monitoring Using Millimeter Wave Radars presents the use of radar techologies as monitoring tool for breathrate and heartrate. In the paper are analyzed some configuration not only classical standoff but also other subject orentation, showing a potential application also in arrhythmia detection. Interesting is the capability of multitarget monitoring presented. As for the article structure, it does not raise any objections. The chapters abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion, as well as conclusions are very well described and they don't raise any doubts. Only at the subsection 3.3 multi-detection it could be better more discussion about achieved results. A suggestion, in my opinion would better if you leave the consideration in the text not in figures caption (look at figures 1,4,5,6,7,10)

In the publication, please make the following changes:

Revise English spell:

at line 30  photopletysmogram change with photoplethysmogram

at line 326 traslational change with translational

Revise figures 4,5,8. There are multiple panels, they should be listed as (a) and (b)

Add references title at its chapter (line 373)

Make uniform to the others the references list, there are two uppercase format for the papers name at reference list 10,50 and italic at 33

After taking into account the above minor revision, I suppose that this article is suitable for publication in Remote Sensing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper aims to design a practical low-cost 122 GHz non-contact FMCW radar device for cardiopulmonary detection to fill the market gap. At the same time, the respiratory and heartbeat signals monitored by the radar device are extracted and separated, and the coupling relationship between them is analyzed, which proves that the radar is feasible for market application. Generally, this paper is well organized, and there are a few deficiencies and here are some detailed comments for improving the paper.

1. The analysis of some experimental results in Chapter 4——Discussion would be appropriately reduced. The simulation and measurement methods are relatively common, so focusing on the advantages of the designed commercial radar compared with other portable monitoring radars in the market.it would be clearer if make a list about your radar advantage over the other cardiorespiratory monitoring devices.
2. Suggest add a comparison with the portability of existing contact or contactless products in the market.
3. Suggest add a flow chart that describes the design of the entire experimental system in Chapter 3.
4. Table title should be placed in the header, please check the format similar to table 4 and table 5.
5. In Figure 14, especially in (a) and (b), the error between HRV and rHRV are as large as 20, though the error mean is 0.21 beats/min. Why this phenomenon happens and what’s the adverse consequences if applied for measuring patient’s status using the biased measurements?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1) The experiment scenario is not clear in experiment 1, in other words, it would be better to explain how the radar is placed like experiment 3, for example, above or beside the subject.

2)The meanings of the forward wave and reflected wave in Figure 10.(b) are not clear. Although some explanations are in discussion, it would be better if more explanations are offered.

 

Some other comments:

3) P3 Line 72, typos? “it can also be”?

4) P4 Line 91, typos? “three experiments”?

5) P10 Line 200, the table caption should be above the table.

6) P11 Line 212, the table caption should be above the table.

7) P13 Line 253, the figure caption is not completer.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf