Estimation of One-Repetition Maximum, Type, and Repetition of Resistance Band Exercise Using RGB Camera and Inertial Measurement Unit Sensors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

SENSORS-2112958 presents work for an estimated 1RM with resistance bands and IMUs. While some parts of this paper were interesting, other areas could be improved. I hope the authors consider my feedback.

MAJOR COMMENTS

·         Subjects: Can you please be more specific about inclusion/exclusion criteria? How were beginner exercisers confirmed (self-report)? How were age and sex collected? Detail is warranted in this section.

·         Methods: How did arm anthropometrics (e.g., arm length) factor into the study?

·         Discussion: Limitations paragraph is needed.

·         The paper has too many tables and figures. Please reduce as appropriate. As a single example, Table 3 is not necessary.

·         Some of the tables could be simplified. For example, Table 6 does not need the degrees of freedom and t-score.

MINOR COMMENTS

·         Line 31: “Muscle strength growth” reads odd. Maybe, “Increasing muscle strength” or similar? The same precision in language may apply elsewhere.

·         Why is “Arm” highlighted throughout?

·         Make any changes to the abstract that align with those from the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work presented “Estimation of 1-Repetition Maximum, Type, and Repetition of 2 Resistance Band Exercise Using RGB Camera and Inertial 3 Measurement Unit Sensors” is interesting. The presentation of the materials and methods section is very good. However, in the view of this reviewer, the following recommendations are made:

 

*The writing of the abstract should be improved. The opening sentences are not adequate, it seems that the introduction is being read, for example “Resistant bands are light, portable, inexpensive, and can be used for muscle strength.” The Abstract must: (i) establish the objective and scope of the study carried out and presented in the article; (ii) describe the methodology; (iii) summarize the most important results; and (iv) establish the main conclusions. The Summary should not include information or conclusions that are not described in the article, should not use abbreviations, nor should references be cited, with strict exceptions. In addition, it must be written in the third person or impersonal.

 

*In the introduction, the writing should be improved. For example, "muscle strength" is repeated several times in a paragraph.

 

*The reference [21] does not have a sequence, even if it is not declared in the document.

 

*In the paragraph (lines 60 to 65) you have to be more specific between the advantages and disadvantages of the products mentioned.

 

*Between lines 70 to 72, is a conclusion.

 

*Place reference in tables, not only in the text, for example, Table 4. Label of each joint in the body_25 model [XX] [Knowledge Management in Organizations", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2021].

 

*Improve discussion of results. The discussion of what is exposed in the work, which is usually done together with the results, constitutes an essential part in which the results shown in the article must be analyzed, discuss their meaning, analyze their scope, and compare them with other results. from literature. What needs to be done is to explain if the observed behavior is acceptable, is expected, agrees with the results of others, if it is similar, the reason for the observed behavior should be explained. After the Introduction section, this section is the one that should have enough citations to justify and convince the reader of the veracity of the results. More than 85% of the references in the introduction.

*In the conclusions section it begins in a personal way, it must be written in the third person or impersonal. Generally they do not have references, the references go in the discussions.

 

*Look for reliable references and change references 24, 36 and 38

 

*39% of references are older than 5 years. Special importance should be given to the mainstream literature of recent years.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is a very good quality based on the good methodology, experiments planning and realization, with proper statistical evaluation and results discussion. Authors plan to continue with several improvements. 

In my opinion the abstract need an improvement. It is very difficult to understand the context without looking before reading the whole paper. 

I dont recommend to use abbreviations in the abstract if their explanations come only later while reading the main text in the paper. You shall prefer full text without acronyms.

I do  not understand the sentence: The inputs of model were divided into IMU (N=10), 20 Joint position (N=50), Upper joint position (N=16), and IMU and joint position (N=60). Please, make it more understandable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed my previous concerns. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

In the work presented “Estimation of 1-Repetition Maximum, Type, and Repetition of 2 Resistance Band Exercise Using RGB Camera and Inertial 3 Measurement Unit Sensors”, the authors made the changes suggested in the first review.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.