PONE-D-25-02053Optimizing the Impact of Time Domain Segmentation Techniques on Upper Limb EMG Decoding Using Multimodal Features

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Waris,

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.

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Reviewers see merti in the work, however, they have also suggested some major changes. Authors are encouraged to incorporate thes changes and submit again.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 23 2025 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,

Noman Naseer, PhD

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. Please ensure you have stated the date of recruitment in the Methods section of your manuscript text to fully comply with the PLOS ONE policy on reporting research involving human participants. This information is currently provided only in the Human Participants Research Checklist, which will not be published with your manuscript files

3. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that “The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from Asim Waris email: asim.waris@smme.nust.edu.pk ”

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

5.  Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewers see merti in the work, however, they have also suggested some major changes. Authors are encouraged to incorporate thes changes and submit again.

[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: This manuscript presents a comprehensive evaluation of windowing techniques for upper limb movement classification using electromyography signals. The methodology and the results are clearly presented. The study showcases practical application in improving myoelectric control systems. To improve the quality of manuscript, following are the suggestions;

Major concerns

1. Clearly clarify the significance of the study: While the study achieves a high classification accuracy, it is unclear how this contributes to the existing body of research on upper limb movement classification.

2. The manuscript requires more details on the dataset and the participants' recruitment process. Also elaborate on the experimental setup, including the equipment used.

3. The introduction section requires improvement to provide a clear and concise explanation of the research question and its significance (Line 43-46). Additionally, the authors should provide a more detailed overview of the current state of research in EMG decoding, highlighting the limitations of existing studies and the potential contributions of the present investigation.

4. The statistical analysis procedures used in the study are not adequately explained, a more detailed description of the two-way ANOVA and post-hoc analysis (Line 195-200) should be added in the manuscript.

5. The discussion section requires further development to provide a clear and concise interpretation of the study's findings and their implications for future research (Line 288-291). Specifically, the authors should elaborate on the implications of the results, discussing the potential applications of the findings and their relevance to clinical practice and future research.

Minor concerns

6. The study uses several abbreviations ( SVM, kNN etc) without defining them. Please define all abbreviations at their first mention.

7. The abstract mentions that the choice of preprocessing technique remains understudied, but it would be helpful to provide more context about why this is a significant knowledge gap. (Lines 21-22). Preprocessing methods used in this study, should be added in detail.

8. Consider rephrasing the last sentence to provide a clearer summary of the study's contributions (Line 35).

9. The last sentence of the introduction is very general in nature. Consider making it more specific by outlining the specific objectives of the study. Consider adding more specific details about the knowledge gap that the present study aims to address (lines 78-81).

10. The description of the EMG sensor placement and data collection procedure lacks clarity. Please provide more details about the sensor placement protocol, including the specific muscles targeted and the rationale behind the placement.

11. The authors report that the Rectangular window with Linear SVM classifier achieved the highest classification accuracy of 99.98% using time-domain features. However, it would be helpful to provide more details about the statistical significance of this result.

12. Conclusion sections seems like the summary of the study, it should be written with respect to the objective, rationale and contribution of the work presented.

13. There is an inconsistency in the notation used to refer to the logistic regression kernel. In Tables 7 and 8, it is abbreviated as 'LR-kernel', whereas in Figures 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11, as well as Tables 5 and 6, it is abbreviated as 'LR'. For clarity and consistency, the authors are recommended to use a uniform notation throughout the manuscript. Tables 1, 3, and 4 are overly lengthy and span two pages, hindering readability and comparison of the data, these tables may be added in supplementary files.

14. While the manuscript presents various figures (Figs 5-11) illustrating performance metrics, the text lacks a clear explanation of why these specific metrics (standard deviation, variance, range, maximum, minimum, and median of classification accuracies) were chosen to evaluate the performance of classifiers with time domain windows technique in preprocessing. The statement merely mentions that these metrics provide 'further insights', but does not elaborate on their significance or relevance to the research question. A more detailed explanation of the rationale behind the selection of these metrics and how they support the conclusions drawn from the results, should be added.

Reviewer #2: The authors provide an analysis of time-domain windowing techniques, yielding valuable insights into their role in enhancing the accuracy of upper limb movement recognition. The study's outcomes constitute a valuable contribution to the field of prosthetic control systems, offering new possibilities for improving the precision and efficacy of prosthetic devices. A key strength of the manuscript lies in its thorough comparison of multiple windowing techniques. To further enhance the manuscript's quality, the following revisions should be made.

Major Comments/Remarks

1. The Introduction (Lines 15-30) requires improvement to clearly articulate the research gap, study objectives, and contextual framework. To enhance clarity, the authors should provide a concise and transparent statement of the research question or hypothesis under investigation. Additionally, a more detailed explanation of the research gap, including its significance and consequences (Lines 20-25), is necessary to contextualize the study. Furthermore, the study's objectives and anticipated outcomes require clearer definition (Lines 25-30), and the Introduction should explicitly state the study's potential contributions to existing knowledge. Addressing these deficiencies will strengthen the manuscript's Introduction.

2. The methodology section requires additional details to ensure transparency and reproducibility (Lines 138-141). Specifically, the authors should elaborate on the procedures employed to guarantee data quality and integrity. Furthermore, discussing potential biases and limitations inherent to the data collection method would strengthen the study's validity.

3. A more in-depth discussion of the findings and their implications is necessary to fully elucidate the study's contributions (Lines 263-265). By exploring the theoretical and practical implications of the results, the authors can demonstrate the study's significance and relevance to the existing literature. Moreover, acknowledging potential limitations and avenues for future research would underscore the study's rigor and potential for advancement.

4. Acknowledging and addressing the study's limitations is crucial to establishing its validity and relevance (Lines 348-351). The authors should provide a more comprehensive discussion of potential biases and limitations inherent to the methodology. By doing so, they can contextualize the study's findings and conclusions, ultimately enhancing the study's impact and contribution to the field.

5. It would be better to enhance the text within Figures for readers visibility.

Minor Comments/Remarks

1. The abstract's narrative could be strengthened by incorporating a clear research question and concise objectives (Lines 16-18). Providing more detailed information would facilitate easier comprehension. Enhancing the abstract would increase the study's overall clarity.

2. A more detailed background and context in the introduction would enable readers to better grasp the study's relevance (Lines 42-44). Elaborating on the study's significance and contributions would strengthen the introduction. Enhancing the introduction would increase validity.

3. Supplementing the results with additional context would facilitate a deeper understanding of the findings (Lines 100-101). Presenting a more thorough analysis of the statistical analysis would enhance the results. Enhancing the results would increase clarity.

4. The discussion would benefit from a more comprehensive analysis of the study's limitations (Lines 137-138). Providing a more nuanced explanation of the study's theoretical framework would strengthen the discussion. Enhancing the discussion would increase validity.

5. A concise and focused conclusion would provide a clearer summary of the study's main findings (Lines 170-171). Outlining the practical applications in more detail would enhance the conclusion. Enhancing the conclusion would increase clarity.

6. Enhancing the clarity and formatting of tables would facilitate easier comprehension (Lines 263-265). Adding informative captions to the tables would enhance the study. Enhancing the tables and figures would increase clarity.

7. Clearly justifying the study's future directions would provide a roadmap for future research (Lines 303-304). Discussing the potential impact of the future directions would enhance the study. Enhancing the future directions would increase validity.

8. The practical applications could be more effectively communicated by providing a clearer summary of the findings (Lines 314-315). Highlighting the key takeaways from the practical applications would enhance the study.

9. The study's organization and structure could be improved by incorporating transitional phrases and headings (Lines 326-327). Using clear and concise headings would facilitate easier navigation. Enhancing the organization would increase clarity.

**********

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: Yes:  Syed Hammad Nazeer Gilani

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.

Optimizing the Impact of Time Domain Segmentation Techniques on Upper Limb EMG Decoding Using Multimodal Features

PONE-D-25-02053R1

Dear Dr. Waris,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Noman Naseer, PhD

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed this reviewers concerns. The authors have addressed this reviewers concerns.

**********

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 #1: Yes:  Syed Hammad Nazeer Gilani

Reviewer #2: No

**********