Influence of Coupling Forces and Body Posture on the Rotational Hand–Arm Impedance in yh Direction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents results coming from a complete and exhaustive experimental analysis of the human hand-arm system in case of rotational vibration excitation around the yh axis. The main aim is the identification of the rotational mechanical impedance of such system, starting from measurements coming from force and acceleration sensors, while considering the crossed effects of multiple parameters (e.g. gripping force). The experimental setup is described in details. Literature description is rich and the novelty aspects of the work are corrrectly remarked, even through four specific questions to which the paper gives precise answers in the Discussion Section.
The data presented are numerous and thery are shown clearly in detail through graphs and tables.
Many international standards and regulations are cited appropriately, in order to better explain the data analysis and to justify the applied experimental setup.
The variability of the data collected, depending on the variety of human subjects involved, is correctly highlighted and also correlated to possible future research developments.
Par. 4.5 (dedicated to industrial applications of the study) is very interesting and it marks the importance of the research in relation to safety of human-machine interaction, which is a central topic in modern Industry 4.0.
For these reasons, I have appreciated the work and I think that the paper can be published after applying only the following minor revisions:
- in the Abstract, you immediately cite the yh axis, but it would be better to find another term to cite it, since the symbol yh (even if generally known in this scientific area) has not been defined yet in the manuscript. Some readers may not understand well.
- Many Figure/Table numbers are completely wrong, both in the captions and in the text. They seem to have been badly updated automatically. Please check and solve the problem.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
We would like to thank you for the positive recommendation of our manuscript, and we are very pleased about the good review. In this context, we are particularly pleased about your great interest in the industrial relevance of the results discussed in chapter 4.5 as well as your appreciation of the novel aspects of our work-
The minor revisions identified have been revised and are listed in the attached document. Furthermore, the revised passages are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in the revised manuscript
Kind regrades
The authors
Point 1:- in the Abstract, you immediately cite the yh axis, but it would be better to find another term to cite it, since the symbol yh (even if generally known in this scientific area) has not been defined yet in the manuscript. Some readers may not understand well.
Response 1: Thanks for this hint, because the term "yh-axis" could indeed be irritating without a corresponding explanation. Therefore, the term “yh axis” in the abstract has been replaced by the term “gripping axis of the hand”. To meet the 200-word limit of the abstract with the new longer term, the abstract was revised and shortened in two places.
Point 2: - Many Figure/Table numbers are completely wrong, both in the captions and in the text. They seem to have been badly updated automatically. Please check and solve the problem.
Response 2: Thanks for this hint, indeed the numbering of the figures and tables as well as the captions in the text are wrong, these errors could be due to a poorly automated update, and we are sorry about this. We have revised and checked the numbering and the corresponding captions in the text.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is prepared at a very good scientific level and will certainly find many readers. There are a few editorial errors, which I list below:
- line 91 - quoting error
- line 141 - quoting error
- line 280 - quoting error
- please verify the correctness of the formatting of the markings (subscripts) in the descriptions of the figures: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
- why is there such a big gap after line 303 ?
Best wishes
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
we would like to thank you for the positive recommendation of our manuscript, and we are very pleased about the good review. We would also like to thank the reviewer for his/her assessment that this manuscript has a very good scientific level and will certainly find many readers, which we also hope.
The editorial identified have been revised and are listed in the attached document. Furthermore, the revised passages are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in the revised manuscript
Kind regrades
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It is all ok, but please check again Figures numbering.... I do not see Fig. 3.2.
Thanks
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
thank you for this reference, we have corrected the numbering of the figures and added the number 3.2 to the caption of the corresponding figure.
Best regards
The authors
Reviewer 2 Report
No additional comments
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
thank you for your positive review and recommendation to MDPI vibration to publish our manuscript.
Best regards
The authors
