Next Article in Journal
A Novel Deep Neural Network Method for HAR-Based Team Training Using Body-Worn Inertial Sensors
Previous Article in Journal
Noninvasive Detection of Bacterial Infection in Children Using Piezoelectric E-Nose
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sensors
Volume 22
Issue 21
10.3390/s22218491
Review Report
sensors-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Comparative Study on the Temporal Effects of 2D and VR Emotional Arousal

Sensors 2022, 22(21), 8491; https://doi.org/10.3390/s22218491
by Feng Tian 1,2,*, Xuefei Wang 1, Wanqiu Cheng 1, Mingxuan Lee 1 and Yuanyuan Jin 1
Reviewer 1:
Nenad Filipovic
Sensors 2022, 22(21), 8491; https://doi.org/10.3390/s22218491
Submission received: 22 August 2022 / Revised: 25 October 2022 / Accepted: 26 October 2022 / Published: 4 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Biosensors)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Better describe ratings using stereoscopic vision in virtual environments,

Explain why the effects of VR-3D on emotional arousal and attention  allocation occurred at 1200 ms after the stimulus begins. What about comparison with other literature data?

Does EEG energy features are only measure technique?

What about others measurement?

Visual evoked potentials are not explored properly.

 

Author Response

We are very grateful for your suggestions. Please see the attachment for the corresponding responses and amendments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

1. It is suggested to present your research questions in from of a research motivation statement. E.g. #1 Stereoscopic visual stimuli is common in VR, however the research about its effect on visual processing is still lacking. In addition, correlation between stereoscopic visual stimuli with the changes in emotion is an important characteristic to be explored. --sorry if i have misinterpreted your RQ.

2. Material and methods section is well presented.

3. On page 5, section 2.4. – I think the first sentence about Bradley and Lang created SAM in unnecessary. You may tell readers straightaway about the method you have chosen, if Figure 4 belongs to them (Bradley & Lang), you may need permission from them.

4. I strongly recommend combining the result and discussion as one section. Both sections are well presented and written, thus putting them together may ease the readers in following the story.

5. If possible, provide a brief discussion regarding the relation between the results – Subjective Rating-EEG-VEP. You may put this at the end of result and discussion section, or in the conclusion.  

Author Response

We are very grateful for your suggestions. Please see the attachment for the corresponding responses and amendments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors responded to my comments.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your reply and your confirmation. We have checked the English spelling and adjusted some of the paragraph expressions in the light of your comments. You can see the specific changes in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop