Effects of Audio-Visual Environmental Factors on Emotion Perception of Campus Walking Spaces in Northeastern China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In soundscape literature, it has been revealed that, in addition to sound level, sound type and the harmony of sound type and space features have an effect on user perception. It should be explained why only sound level was evaluated in this study and why sound types were not included.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer's comments

The main objective of your article is to conduct a field experiment across varied campus walking spaces to explore the effects of audio-visual environmental factors on emotion perception. I find the topic interesting, the approach is well-executed, and the manuscript is well-written. After carefully reviewing your manuscript, I have concluded that your work has the potential for acceptance following major revisions. My comments are summarized in the following points:

 

Major issues :

The title of the manuscript appears interesting and suggests a study on the effects of audio-visual environmental factors on the perception of emotions in walking spaces on a university campus. However, there is some repetition in the title. I suggest the following revision:

·       Remove "A Field Experiment Across Varied Campus Walking Spaces."

·       The revised title needs to provide a clearer focus on the specific region of study (Northeastern China)

Lignes 21-27: Please condense this part of the abstract in the abstract to a single line discussing future research:

“We recommend adopting a comprehensive evaluation approach which combines subjective and objective data when assessing campus walking spaces. Our research has established multiple linear regression models based on data from 420 experimental samples linking audio-visual environmental factors to emotion changes. It can serve as a valuable guide for optimizing the design of audio-visual environments within campus walking spaces, ultimately enhancing pedestrians ' emotional experiences, improving the comfort of these environments, and promoting sustainable campus development”.

Also, refrain from using words like "We," "Our," etc., in the abstract, as seen in phrases such as:

·       Lines 16: “Our findings revealed…”

·       Lines 21: “We recommend adopting…”

·       Lines 22: “Our research…”

Lignes 28-29: For the keywords, three out of five are the same as those presented in the title; could you please revise them?

Lines 74-76: “Instead , it constitutes a multisensory experience that encompasses visual, auditory, olfactory, and other sensory inputs, all converging to form a comprehensive consciousness. People integrate this sensory information ...”.

Can you provide citations for this statement, referencing studies that focus on the multisensory experience of a sensory walk on university campuses? For example, I suggest mentioning a similar work published in the same journal: “Exploring the multisensory interaction between luminous, thermal and auditory environments through the spatial promenade experience: a case study of a university campus in an oasis settlement. Sustainability, 14(7), 4013.”

Lines 116-131:

Firstly, rewrite this section; do not use "We" in the text as has already been mentioned.

Secondly, do not use the past tenses for action verbs like:

·       Line 119: "we addressed"

·       Line 120: "1. We explored"

·       Line 122: "2. We examined"

·       Line 125: "3. We have examined"

·       Line 128: "4. We constructed"

Furthermore, you mentioned in line 119, "Within the research, we addressed the following primary questions:" So, you need to rephrase points 1 to 4 (Lines: 116-131) so that they are presented in the form of questions. Alternatively, you can rephrase them to be stated as objectives.

Lines 132-137: Remove this part from your introduction: “The responses to these inquiries not only provide physiological substantiation for the Stimulus -Organism -Response (SOR) theory but also provide direction for quantitative research techniques and practical implementation grounded field experiment . The results obtained from physiological indicators and subjective assessments will also assist designers in optimizing the audio-visual environmental elements within campus pedestrian areas, thereby enhancing the overall quality of the campus environment.“

Major issues :

Please do not use "We," "Our," etc., in your manuscript.

 

Please use more references in your discussion. This subject has been extensively studied in recent years.

The language used in the manuscript requires significant revision to improve clarity and fluency. The issue primarily arises from incorrect verb usage in both present and past tenses in certain situations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript analyzed the relationship between audio-visual environmental factors and emotion changes. The manuscript had sufficient data, novel research methods, scientific analysis and valuable research conclusions. However, there were the following problems, which I hope can be explained and modified.

1.    The walking space chosen in this manuscript was a linear connection space between different activity units in the campus. What were the students’ main actions？ Did they simply pass by or have other actions simultaneously? Did the pre-experiment investigate student behaviors in the selected spaces?

2.    Did a 5-minute walk have an effective effect on emotion changes?

3.    Participants' familiarity with the space environment will affect their emotional evaluation. How to avoid such errors in the experiment?

4.    Which data in the conclusion （5.2, line512-522） corresponded to the data in the result (3 Results)? The threshold range of these parameters differed greatly from the average value of each environmental factors (Table 3, Table 6), especially the parameter TMD. In addition, the national standard for campus environmental noise is 55 dB during the day and 45dB at night.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate that the manuscript has the potential to be accepted. I would like to thank the authors for considering all of my comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have given a complete explanation of the problems.