Local maximum synchrosqueezes form scaling-basis chirplet transform

Yating Hou; Liming Wang; Xiuli Luo; Xingcheng Han

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0278223

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 12, 2022
25 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Bashar Ibrahim, Editor PONE-D-22-22608Local maximum synchrosqueezes form scaling-basis chirplet transformPLOS ONE Dear Dr. hou, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 09 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Bashar Ibrahim Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “The manuscript is funded by:(1)Science and Technology Innovation Project of Colleges and Universities in Shanxi Province(China),the award number is 2020L0301;（2）Fundamental Research Program of Shanxi Province(China), the award number is 20210302124545.” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 10 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The paper proposes a new TFA method to obtain better time-frequency representation for nonstationary signals. This topic is important in signal processing and its real-life applications, and the presented transform is interesting. Theoretical basis is well described with detailed proof. The data validation shows that the proposed method has excellent performance for the signal with strongly time-varying IF, by comparing to several classical time-frequency methods. 1. In order to better compare the TF concentration of the TFR obtained different TF methods, it is suggested to display the RE values of each component in the table as EMD. 2. The authors should introduce more details of the experimental device and the experimental implementation, rather than just give the data source. 7.In Section 6, it is suggested that the authors also use quantitative indicators to measure the TFR results of different TF analysis methods and analyze them. Reviewer #2: 1 The authors shoud state the contribution and the novelty of this paper. The proposed method LMSBCT is a simple combination of SBCT and LMSST. 2 The English level of this paper should be improved. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278223.r001
Revision 1
7 Nov 2022 Author Response We would like to thank the reviewers and the editor for their time in reviewing our paper and suggestions for improving it. We have written a detailed point-by-point response to the reviewers to address their comments and explain the corresponding changes made in the manuscript. The detailed point-by-point responses to journal requirements are given as follows: (1) We amend our manuscript to meet PLOS ONE's style requirements according to the PLOS ONE style templates; (2) In financial disclosure, the funders assisted with study design and manuscript preparation; (3) We amend our Data Availability Statement and provide the corresponding URLs where the datasets can be accessed; The Bat signal used in this paper came from Rice University. The website is https://web.archive.org/web/20160403234536/http://dsp.rice.edu/software/bat-echolocation-chirp.The Vibration signals from Case Western Reserve Univesity dataset. The website is https://engineering.case.edu/bearingdatacenter/apparatus-and-procedures. (4) We have created an ORCID iD and updated my Information; (5) We were sorry for our careless mistakes. We ensure that all figures were mentioned in the manuscript. We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments, which have helped us to further improve the contribution of the paper. We have addressed all the comments and suggestions and revised our manuscript as follows: For Reviewer: 1 Response to the comments Comment 1: In order to better compare the TF concentration of the TFR obtained different TF methods, it is suggested to display the RE values of each component in the table as EMD. Our Response: The authors sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. EMD is to divide the nonstationary signal into several intrinsic mode functions from high to low frequencies, and then perform Hilbert transform on each IMF component of the decomposition. The method used in this study is to choose a short window for the signal to be observed. It is assumed that the signal within each short window is stationary, but each window may contain more than one prominent frequency component. It is difficult to evaluate Rényi entropy for each component. In order to better evaluate the processing performance of different methods for each frequency component, this paper shows the instantaneous amplitude spectra of several methods at the time of 0.5s. In Section 4.2, figure 6 was added [p17, line293].In the third paragraph of Section 4.2, the following sentences have been added to explain Fig 6 and improve the quality of the paper [p16, line285-292]: Fig 6 illustrates the instantaneous amplitude spectra of different time-frequency analysis methods at the time of 0.5 s. The spectral bandwidths of STFT and SBCT are large, and there is no boundary between the frequency components. In contrast, the energy of the frequency spectrum of RM and LMSBCT is concentrated in a narrow bandwidth. The frequency component IF3 was locally amplified (represented in red). Comparing Figs 6(c) and (d), LMSBCT has clear boundaries between each frequency component, more concentrated energy, and high noise immunity. Comment 2: The authors should introduce more details of the experimental device and the experimental implementation, rather than just give the data source. Our Response: The authors sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. The authors have checked the literature carefully and added more details about the experimental device and the experimental implementation in section 5 of the revised manuscript. Actions on Manuscript: In Section 5.1, “Digitized echolocation pulse emitted by the Large Brown Bat, Eptesicus Fuscus.” was added [p20, line339-340]. To better show the effectiveness of the algorithm in this paper, the authors changed this part of the processed signal to a multicomponent bat echo signal. The detailed modification can be found in 'Response to Reviewers'. In Section 5.2, The authors added the experimental setup diagram [p24, line383-384] and the data acquisition method [p23, line362-367]. The following sentences have been added to the manuscript: “Experiments were carried out using a 2-horsepower Reliance Electric motor with acceleration data measured near and away from the motor bearings. As shown in Fig 12, the test stand included a 2 hp motor, torque transducer/encoder, dynamometer, and control electronics. Vibration data were collected using accelerometers attached to housing with magnetic bases”. Comment 3: In Section 6, it is suggested that the authors also use quantitative indicators to measure the TFR results of different TF analysis methods and analyze them. Our Response: The authors sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. The authors have rewritten this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion. Actions on Manuscript: The authors again use the Rényi entropy indicators to highlight the superiority of the proposed algorithm. This action will make the conclusions more objective and credible. The revised paragraph[p25, line396-403] reads as follows： (1) The frequency changes of strong time-varying signals can be analyzed effectively. Compared with other TFA methods, the Rényi entropy of LMSBCT can be reduced to 9.6438. (2) The Rényi entropies of the LMSBCT algorithm were always lower than those of the other methods when the SNR was reduced from 30 dB to 1 dB. This implies that the multicomponent signals can be effectively separated, even at low SNRs. (3) This method can also obtain an elaborate TFR when the instantaneous frequencies of the signals are close to each other. Even if the frequency interval of the signal is less than 1Hz, the Rényi entropy of the LMSBCT is the smallest compared to the other methods, which is 8.0927. For Reviewer: 2 Response to the comments Comment 1: The authors should state the contribution and the novelty of this paper. The proposed method LMSBCT is a simple combination of SBCT and LMSST. Our Response: The authors sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. LMSST is essentially a post-processing method of STFT. Fundamentally, the effectiveness of these post-processing methods and the superiority of the processed signals also depend on the original time-frequency analysis method. SBCT is also an improved method of STFT. Our manuscript proposes the LMSBCT method by making a good combination of SBCT and LMSST for the first time based on the improvement of STFT, i.e., SBCT. Such an approach would give the results of time-frequency analysis the advantages of SBCT as well as the advantages of increased post-processing. Simulated and real-life signals are employed to validate the advantages of LMSBCT by comparing them with some advanced TF methods. The experimental results demonstrate that LMSBCT can provide a better time-varying description, obtain a more precise IF estimate, and have stronger noise robustness. Actions on Manuscript: The authors have added a sentence to the Abstract section to clarify the novelty of this paper. The added sentence is shown below [p1, line17-18]: which is a further improvement of the scaling-basis chirplet transform (SBCT) with energy rearrangement in frequency and can be viewed as a good combination of SBCT and local maximum synchrosqueezing transform. Comment 2: The English level of this paper should be improved. Our Response: The authors sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. The authors revised and improved the English of our manuscript. The authors have polished our article by editage. Thanks again for your thoughtful suggestion, it is very important. Due to your suggestion, we found some shortcomings in our current work. We will improve our research level according to your suggestion in future work and get more achievements. We are hoping to learn more from you. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278223.r002
14 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Bashar Ibrahim, Editor Local maximum synchrosqueezes form scaling-basis chirplet transform PONE-D-22-22608R1 Dear Dr. hou, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Bashar Ibrahim Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: No further comment. The authors have addressed all my concerns. This paper is good and can be accepted. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278223.r003
Formally Accepted
17 Nov 2022 Acceptance Letter - Bashar Ibrahim, Editor PONE-D-22-22608R1 Local maximum synchrosqueezes form scaling-basis chirplet transform Dear Dr. Hou: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Prof. Dr. Bashar Ibrahim Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278223.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .