Next Article in Journal
A Systematic Review of Closed-Loop Feedback Techniques in Sleep Studies—Related Issues and Future Directions
Next Article in Special Issue
Biosensing and Actuation—Platforms Coupling Body Input-Output Modalities for Affective Technologies
Previous Article in Journal
Detection of Anomalous Behavior in Modern Smartphones Using Software Sensor-Based Data
Previous Article in Special Issue
SteadEye-Head—Improving MARG-Sensor Based Head Orientation Measurements Through Eye Tracking Data
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sensors
Volume 20
Issue 10
10.3390/s20102769
Review Report
sensors-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

Printed Edition

A printed edition of this Special Issue is available at MDPI Books....
share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Variability of Coordination in Typically Developing Children Versus Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder with and without Rhythmic Signal

Sensors 2020, 20(10), 2769; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/s20102769
by Lidia V. Gabis 1,2, Shahar Shefer 2 and Sigal Portnoy 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sensors 2020, 20(10), 2769; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/s20102769
Submission received: 14 April 2020 / Revised: 8 May 2020 / Accepted: 11 May 2020 / Published: 13 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Low-Cost Sensors and Biological Signals)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents a simple experiment involving children with ASD. The experiment was aimed at checking movement synchronization and coordination abnormalities when jumping with and without rhythmic signal. The acceleration of the movement was investigated, and based on it and two measures, some conclusions have been drawn.


There were eight children with ASD and 19 typically developed ones recruited for the experiment. The authors, during the analysis of the obtained results, found some significant differences between groups. in conclusion they stated: "the simple protocol presented in this study allows an objective and accurate quantification of the intra-subject variability of children with ASD via actigraphy". In my opinion, this is a too strong statement. Also, too few participants were engaged to state this, and too few jumps were analyzed.

Another question is if there are other quantities that can be extracted from registered signals to assess movement coordination. The meaning of LV should also be explained more precisely. Why was it defined in the presented way ?
It is not clear if the last column, in table 2, does show results of the comparison between subjects or between groups?

Author Response

Please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The overall experiment design looks good and the obtained results are interesting and easy to reproduce, so I suggest to publish the article after minor revision. However, I would suggest to add some graphical information to the article: with the scarce sampling the statistics will be much more clear if it will be shown in the graphical form, not only as table of average quantities and its variations. I suggest to show raw data points either in small supplementary, or in the article directly and also show the results from the main table also as separate graphs. There is also probably typo "make" -> "male" in the Discussion section of the article.

Author Response

Please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,


Thank you for your response to my comments. Now, I think the manuscript explains my doubts.

Back to TopTop