// Overall statement

The article was very well written, and each section was very clear in laying out the study. Each section flows very well into the next and there are no huge weaknesses to this study. The results are well presented and adequately discussed. The figures could be a little better in terms of the formatting and presentation and the methods are a little heavy to read. However, this doesn’t take away from what is being presented in the paper overall and are relatively easy to fix.

// Overall strengths and impacts of the paper

The flow of the paper is well done and it’s easy to read without much confusion. Any terms that need to be defined are defined. The results are presented in a logical way and the discussion covers the results thoroughly and covers the results from different angles and presents intriguing future work for the technology explored in this paper. The implications of this work could be huge as it could pave the way for the development of very effective protheses for individuals with spinal cord injury and allow them to walk once more and gain a sense of independence.

// Specific comments on weaknesses of the article and what could be improved

Major points in the article which needs clarification, refinement, reanalysis, rewrites and/or additional information and suggestions for what could be done to improve the article.

1. Could state where exactly on the muscles left quadricep, tibialis anterior, and gastrocnemius the EMG electrodes were placed (ie. The head, body tail).
2. Although the methods are very clearly described, the entire section is very dense (especially the data analysis, calibration and control sections) and it would be helpful to perhaps have some figures that outline some of the data processing/analysis (eg. Showing a schematic of how Offline Evaluation, Online Evaluation and Calibration steps).
3. In figure 1, the BCI Computer and RoGO boxes can be moved off of the picture of the subject as it isn't actually in the picture. Having it be in the picture makes it seem like there should be something there when there actually isnt. It’s not clear what +1 and -1 mean on the scale in Fig. 2. I would also choose a different colour scheme for the heat map as this heat map is not very the best choice in terms of accessibility and appearance. It’s also not entirely clear why there are two feature plots per subject. Is it showing the different features for walking and idling? In Fig. 4, The gyroscope and EMG signals are a little hard to read with how small they are; I would suggest making that figure larger just so that those signals are easier to read. Another possibility for the EMG specifically is to separate the EMG of the different muscles into different plots so can you see all of the muscle activities very clearly. In Fig. 3, the dashed lines indicating the quartiles are a little too like each other; it would be good to have the lines for the quartile look very significantly different from the other.
4. In the second paragraph of the discussion (discussing the prediction model for subject 1), the features of subject 2 isn’t really discussed. I think comparing the differences between subject 1 and subject 2 would be interesting to see as the two are clearly similar in some ways but very different in other ways (ie. The dark blue regions in subject 2 that aren’t present in subject 1).

Minor points like figures/tables not being mentioned in the text, a missing reference, typos, and other inconsistencies.

N/A