Effects of Vehicle Air Temperature on Drivers’ Cognitive Abilities Based on EEG

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer’s Report on the manuscript entitled:

Effects of vehicle ambient temperature on drivers' cognitive abilities based on EEG

 

The authors assessed the impacts of vehicle ambient temperature on cognitive abilities and EEG. They concluded that high cognitive ability and thermal comfort can be achieved for the drivers when the ambient temperature remains between 20℃and 23℃. I think the research topic and results are interesting, however, there is no novelty in the methodology section. Furthermore, presentation and literature review should be improved. Please see below my comments.

 

There are many punctuation issues that need to be fixed. For example, in line 43 you should say “Li and Chen [5] explored …” When there are two authors, you need to write both last names.

 

Line 61. EEG suddenly started here. I suggest open a new paragraph and define EEG, its applications in various areas, such as epilepsy detection, emotion classification, sleep disorder, etc. Also, a little talk about the source of noise that contaminates EEG such as, muscle and eye-blink artifacts, etc. Some suggested articles include:

https://doi.org/10.3390/s22082948

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2021.102887

https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10131531

https://doi.org/10.3390/s22062346

 

Line 81. Please use bullet points to list the main contributions of this research.

 

Figure 3. Please enlarge the font size of the numbers on the x-axis.

 

Line 144. Please define TSV, etc. All the abbreviations must be defined the first time they appear in the manuscript.

 

Line 165. This method section needs some references. You can also mathematically define Pearson correlation coefficient. Equations (1) and (2) with their descriptions can also move here in the method section not in the result section.

 

Line 262. It would be interesting to see the effect of low temperatures like 0C, 5C, 10C, 15C on EEG. I understand the authors might not have the study done on the low temperature but can at least discuss it or point it out as for the future work.

 

Figure 12. What are the numbers with plus sign that you wrote inside the boxes? Please write a short description in the caption.

 

Line 311. It should be “4. Discussion” not “4. Discuss”.

 

Please show a few time series (signals) for EEG and ambient temperature together and show their power spectra and coherency. Is there any phase delay? For example, as I can see from Table 6 as temperature increases motivation decreases. This is shown by Pearson correlation but what about with wavelet coherence in the time-frequency? This means there could be a phase delay.

 

I see at the end of conclusions that you pointed out the cooler temperatures less than 20 as future work. Other limitations of this study need to be highlighted. For example, were all drivers healthy at the time of experiment? What would happen if a driver had headache or cold?

 

Please follow the MDPI guideline for formatting the references.

 

Thank you!

Author Response

请参阅附件

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, here below you will find my general and specific comments about your manuscript.

Best regards.

 

General comments

 

1. The clothing insulation value adopted for the current investigation is typical of the winter season, as all researchers know well. So, the study carried out over 23 °C is not realistic. In addition, how has the clothing insulation due to the seat been considered (See ISO 9920)?
2. The investigation assumes that air temperature is the only critical factor in assessing thermal comfort conditions and cognitive performance. It is unrealistic because vehicles receive solar and IR radiation from hot surfaces. Do the authors know the mean radiant temperature? And the operative temperature?
3. The measurement protocol needs to be clarified.
4. TSV values reveal a cold sensation (-1,5) at low air temperatures. This sounds strange if the indoor air temperature is 20 °C, clothing insulation is typical of winter, and a large part of the body is in contact with the seat. 
5. The characterization of the indoor environment (the cabin) is poor. It is necessary to verify the homogeneity of air temperature, to measure the mean radiant temperature, and finally, to measure the air velocity (do the author know local discomfort phenomena due to draught rate?). This makes it difficult to generalize the main findings from the present investigation.

 

 

Other minor issues

 

·      Vehicle ambient temperature is uncommon. Please use vehicle air temperature. This is why in the field of the ergonomics of the thermal environment, radiative heat transfer affects the thermal sensation and, thus, operative temperature is used as an indicator.

·      A nomenclature section is recommended

·      RH symbol in table 1 is wrong

·      IN table 1 Tw is the natural wet bulb temperature or not?

·      What about the WBGT meter? This index must be measured with an instrument consistent with ISO 7243 (Globe diameter of 15 cm and natural wet bulb temperature sensor).

·      L148 typo: ASHRAE

Author Response

请参阅附件

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the authors for improving the manuscript. 

Line 331. It should be [-5, 5].

You should describe Fig. 3 in the manuscript. I don’t see anywhere you refer to it.

References 19, 20, 22, etc. please provide the full author list. Please carefully check the references one by one to ensure their correctness according to the MDPI guideline. 

Please carefully proofread the manuscript and correct typos/punctuation/grammar issues.

 

Thank you 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer and Editor,

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript (Effects of vehicle air temperature on drivers' cognitive abilities based on EEG). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the remarks made by the reviewer.

1.Line 331. It should be [-5,5].

3.References 19,20,22,etc.please provide the full author list. Please carefully check the references one by one to ensure their correctness according to the MDPI guideline.

4.Please carefully proofread the manuscript and correct typos/punctuation/grammar issues.

Response1,3,4: Thanks to the reviewer for this comment.

We have revised this question carefully and thoroughly. The revised introduction which is in red can be seen in the revised paper.

2.You should describe Fig. 3 in the manuscript. I don’t see anywhere you refer to it.

Response2: Thanks to the reviewer for this comment.

Fig. 3 is described in detail in section 2.4 of the manuscript or lines 156-166.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, thank you very much for your replies.

You have to stress in the conclusions that assuming the air temperature and the mean radiant temperature as equal is not realistic, so further analyses have been required.
Best regards.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer and Editor,

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript (Effects of vehicle air temperature on drivers' cognitive abilities based on EEG). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the remarks made by the reviewer.

1.You have to stress in the conclusions that assuming the air temperature and the mean radiant temperature as equal is not realistic, so further analyses have been required.

Response1: Thanks to the reviewer for this comment.

We have revised this question carefully and thoroughly. We have highlighted this issue in lines 416–418 of the manuscript.