On the Unification of Common Actigraphic Data Scoring Algorithms
, Anna Stróż 1, Marian Dovgialo 1, Anna Duszyk-Bogorodzka 1 and Piotr Durka 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please, see attachment
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We are sorry for not marking the changes in the manuscript. Addressing all the valuable remarks related to the readability and clarity of the text required changing the order of presentation, to start with the proposed framework and clearly present our findings within this context. Therefore we were not able to reasonably mark the changes in the resubmitted version, where the order and wording was significantly changed. Below we address separately all the technical remarks, pointing out to the positions in the revised manuscript where applicable.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a valuable Article presenting the unification of mathematical formalisms of different techniques of Actigraphic Data scoring and analysis. The Authors put a lot of effort into analyzing the similarities between the selected computational techniques, and they finally presented their view and the recipe for a simplified version of the algorithm that combines all the studied methods. In the reviewer's opinion this is high quality paper which also presents a valuable critical approach to some algorithms, explaining exactly the causes of the problems, including for example resampling and potential aliasing problems.
It would be interesting and good for the reader (if possible) to supplement the results with some comparative graphics taking into account selected models and Autor's unification.
Author Response
We are sorry for not marking the changes in the manuscript. Addressing all the valuable remarks related to the readability and clarity of the text required changing the order of presentation, to start with the proposed framework and clearly present our findings within this context. Therefore we were not able to reasonably mark the changes in the resubmitted version, where the order and wording was significantly changed. Below we address separately all the technical remarks, pointing out to the positions in the revised manuscript where applicable.
As for the comparative graphics, we reorganized Figure 1 and added one more figure in the Discussion.
