Experimental Evaluation on Haptic Feedback Accuracy by Using Two Self-Made Haptic Devices and One Additional Interface in Robotic Teleoperation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors address a very relevant issue for teleoperation. The paper, even if it deserves some improvements, describes a very large experimental work and brings useful information to the scientific community. 
The paper is well constructed: the conclusions of the experiments are well discussed and are well re-used for the next experiment.

In general, you should specify in more detail the technical components and concepts used in the development and use of the two haptic devices iGrasp-R and iGrasp-T so that non-expert readers can better understand.  Then, often you have several figures that make up your figure. A finer referencing, for example Fig4.a, 4.b and 4.c in the text would also help the reading of the article.

Now, some comments and suggestions: 

Section 2. B: Need to clarify the different subparts of Figure 4 in the text ;The authors are asked to describe the information (human hand posture ? need to be specified) displayed in the iHandle interface.
Effectively described in section 3; but can be rearranged to facilitate the reader's understanding; 

Section 3.1 : This sentence "Independently, the device iHandle is a typical human-computer interface to implement human-computer interaction" does not help. What do the authors call a "typical human-computer interface"? 

Specify what is the angle of Euler ;  Which one is measured?

Section 3.3: Can you explain how you defined these thirty seconds?

Same legend in table 3 and table 4 ? May be an error ?

In section 4 : Could you explain what the DELTA mechanism is?
Same remark as before, for figure 9, make the calls mentioning Fig. 9.a and Fig 9.b to faciltate the reading;

Section 4.1 : How are the coefficients k in equation (1) and in (2) in section 4.1 determined?

Why did the authors choose to present together the data obtained on the two haptic devices iGrasp-R and iGrasp-T knowing that the principles of these two devices are different ?  Are the results not dependent on haptic device?

Section 4.2: How many participants "all participants are required to hold ....."? Are they always the same participants than the previous experiment (Section 3.2)

Section 4.3: "An experienced user moves the end-effector of iGrasp-T"

Section 4.3: How do you plan to adjust F_h for real world uses of this type of haptic device? At each pre-use of iGrasp-T for a user? 

Conclusion and perspective : The conclusion and perspectives could be developed. The conclusion does not include all the results of the tests performed. The perspective "we will attempt the neural network to compensate the output force of haptic device to improve the accuracy of output force" could be clarified : how will the neural network be learned ?

Author Response

Thank you for your review of our paper. We have answered each of your questions in the attached .pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors describe their attempt to present a study about their experimental evaluation on haptic feedback accuracy. This is an interesting topic, however, their presentation has small parts where the authors did not provide enough information about their study:

1. Fig.4 presents a NI Labview platform without any information how the platform was implemented: is a platform that was downloaded from NI website, provided by the manufactured of the sensors, or the authors developed that platform. Also, being an international paper, also the writing inside platform should be in English.
2. Fig6 and Fig.7 should express clearly what is represented on x-axis. What L0, R0 represent? L0 - subject zero? 
3. Table 2 is to big for the template. Reconsider rearrange the table. 
4. The authors did not explain where they used Eq1-7. For example, did they calculated the operation resistance and compared the results with the measurements, or is just an information ..
5. For example, for Fig 12, they used an expression like "smaller 3%". Is important to be smaller than 3%? if yes, why?
6. Fig 12, presents on x-axis "Percentage". What is the difference between "Fluctuation percentage" and "percentage"?
7. Please correct expressions like: "However, the experimental result under human manipulation is far from the previ-365 ous experimental result that the median of output force fluctuation is almost 0.5N ..." or "the percentage of force fluctuation is mainly between 20% and 40%". Is important to be between 20% - 40%?
8. no reference for fig 18 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your review of our paper. We have answered each of your questions in the attached .pdf file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.