Usability and Vibration Analysis of a Low-Profile Automatic Powered Wheelchair to Motor Vehicle Docking System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper introduces a low-profile automatic powered wheelchair docking system, based on the existing experimental platform to test obstacle course, and analyzes its availability and vibration characteristics, and gives the test results. The structure of the paper is clear, but the paper has the following problems, need to supplement and modify.

(1) This paper lacks the principle of a wheelchair docking system.

(2) What is the basic method of vibration characteristic test? How to get vibration data? This is not stated clearly in part 2.3.2.

(3) What are the specific methods of usability of wheelchair docking system testing? This paper lacks the necessary theoretical approach.

(4) This paper lacks comparative verification.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your invaluable comments. We addressed all your comments, please see attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript describes a combination of vibration data analysis and user experience rating analysis when comparing a new style of power wheelchair transportation docking system and a 4-point tie down system. 3/15 participants used an EZ lock transportation docking system and analyses of user experience ratings were conducted with and without these results.

 

The paper is well written with a comprehensive introduction and justification for the study. Methods and results are clearly described with appropriate pictures, diagrams, figures and tables. 

For the System Usability Scale (SUS) - it would be helpful to know what the 10 questions are - or at least some examples. How do 10 questions with a 5 point likert scale  transform to a score of 0-100? This information would allow the reader to understand how SUS results compare with the NASA TLX and the items included on the wheelchair driving experience, comfort and security questionnaires.

 

Results:

The vibration data is not significantly different between the types of docking systems other than speed bumps. Since I am not an engineer, I can’t comment on the methodology or analysis of this data - but from a clinical perspective, the presentation is clear.

 

The power wheelchair driving experience is not significantly different other than increased ease of docking with the QLX in comparison to the other transportation systems. This holds true, with or without the three EZ lock users included in the analysis. Difficulties with EZ lock pins catching on uneven ground was not noted - however, there were only three users with an EZ lock pin on the bottom of their wheelchair - so, it should perhaps be clarified, that this analysis is primarily between QLX and 4-point tie downs - and not between QLX and EZ lock. 

 

The vehicle riding user experience:

P10 line 298 - I think this sentence ‘no significant differences between the QLX and both WDSs’ is referring to the NASA TLX results - if so, this should be clarified. If it refers to other data - then the sentence also requires clarification - as it appears to contradict the prior sentence regarding SUS results.

 

The vehicle riding experience results are presented with and without EZ lock users’ data - however, it appears that only 1 of the 3 EZ lock users actually travelled in their wheelchair with the EZ lock system since two transferred to the driver’s seat.  How was the analysis conducted - was one user’s data removed or three? This requires clarification in the paper - perhaps the additional tables with EZ lock participants removed could be presented as supplementary material - with clarification as to the number of participants in each analysis - for wheelchair driving and vehicle riding experiences.

 

These issues - and since the small number of EZ lock users does not allow any comparison between the two types of system should perhaps be highlighted more in the limitations section. 

Since driving overground was not shown to be different between EZ lock and QLX in this study - perhaps this topic merits future comparison between more balanced groups?

 

Overall, this is a well-written paper and a comprehensive analysis and comparison of a new type of tie-down system with traditional 4-point tie down systems. With minor revision, it will be acceptable for publication.  

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your invaluable comments. We addressed all your comments, please see attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised manuscript has answered the questions raised and the author has added relevant content. The revised manuscript is suitable for publication

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank-you for the additions and clarifications added in response to my comments. These address my questions adequately - and I think the paper is suitable for publication.

I noted a few editing issues that appear to have occurred when adding in these clarifications - and I hope these will be addressed in the copy editing stage.

Line 50 - I think has been changed to 'manual wheelchair users can transfer' - if so - 'are able to' should be removed.

Line 70 - if 'with' is being replaced with 'per ISO' - then 'with' should be removed

There are a number of error messages (reference material not found) - I am not clear why these are there - but appear on lines 148, 154, 190, 276,277, 278,299, 306, 312

Line 212 - there is an extra 'and'

Line 232 - thank-you for adding clarification about the SUS. 'Its score range from 0-100' is now superfluous.

Line 321 - 'results not shown in tables' should now be removed - since you have added a supplementary table S4)