Research on the Material and Spatial Psychological Perception of the Side Interface of an Underground Street Based on Virtual Reality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting and how needs major amendments and clarification. The authors need to look at the following to improve the paper.

The authors need to define the side interface.

The knowledge gap in the literature presented on page 3, paragraph 2 needs to be clearly articulated. The first knowledge gap mentioned by the authors seems to be, more of a limitation that a knowledge gap. The second knowledge gap is confusing as studies have been made on the relationships between materials and perception of space, I am not sure how they were discussed independently or without linking each other.

Citations are needed to support the claims of the authors in paragraph 3. For example, what is the basis of the statement made by the authors: “While the pavement of the underground commercial street has been studied previously, the top surface material has little influence on people's perception”.

In the methodology section, the following should be clarified:

The first statement of 2.1.1 needs clarity. The authors need to inform what study (whether Field or online) they have conducted for what purposes.  If they have used both the studies for different aspects or locations then they should inform it clearly.

The justification of the sample size used- its adequacy and the selection process should be provided (section 2.1.2).

In the questionnaire design, how the scaling was done and used is not clear. Why two types of scales are used specifically why a 9-point scale is used and how the results are standardized and what advantages the standardization would bring is not clear. It is necessary for the replicability of the study. Moreover, the descriptors should be provided. Furthermore, since the scale is a little different from the normal Likert scale, it should be supported by citations or evidence from the literature.

How the duration of 3 minutes to form a complete perceptual picture of the scenes during the experiment was determined or decided? Also, how long did they take rest between different experiments? There seems to have some anomaly as the total duration of the experiment is stated to be between 55-90 minutes. However, since each experiment takes 3 minutes for having a complete perceptual picture of the scene plus the respondents take rest between each scene of the experiment (varying time and not known) and 3-5 minutes to adjust to VR, it is likely to take more than minimum of 55 minutes and maximum 90 minutes as stated to complete all the 17 scenes. The authors are required to clarify this anomaly if any.

Section 2.4 (statistical analyses) should be detailed. What analyses were conducted for what purposes and their justification should be articulated? Specifically, the stepwise regression model should be explained.

The discussion section is not clear. It is more of an extension of the results section than any proper discussion with the engagement of findings from the previous literature and implications. Also, it is not clear how the calculations were made as nothing was discussed in the analyses section. For example, why two ranking methods have been used and how the calculations have been made. What implications do the ranking have? Further, why factor analysis was conducted (Table 7) and how it is linked to Table 8. How the values in Table 8 have been calculated?  Further in section 4.1.1, the authors have mentioned that the results are based on one-way ANOVA. However, no evidence is found in the results/discussion section or the methodology section.

In other words, the results and discussions sections should be reformulated, strengthened and re-articulated. In the current state, it lacks clarity as well as does not lead to clear and conclusive findings.

 

Sections 4.3, 4.4 and conclusion section 5 may be clubbed together and the conclusion section may be strengthened with the articulation of critical and substantive conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The novelty of this paper is significant to publish on “Buildings”. Due to some issues that need improvement before a publication, my decision, therefore, is an acceptance with minor revisions.

Here are my comments on improving the manuscript:

1.       Abstract: this section is ok.

2.       Introduction:

·         This section includes an introduction and background; thus, it is too long and tiring to read. Please consider separating it into two sections such as introduction and literature review.

·         Moreover, to make the introduction clearer, please consider stating research questions and research objectives.

3.       Literature Review:

·         Literature Review section plays an important role in the research, thus please add this section to this manuscript.

·         The new section includes subsections illustrating some key topics regarding the research (e.g. VR application, characteristics of underground streets, etc.)

4.       Method: Do authors conduct a pilot test before carrying out an industry-wide survey? Please provide a questionnaire.

 

5.       Conclusion: this section is very short and poor. The conclusion will be improved by emphasizing the research contributions and future work. Please rewrite.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In current study (buildings-1859249-peer-review-v1), the authors empirically investigated and analyzed: “Research on the material and spatial psychological perception of the side interface of an underground street based on virtual reality”

 

The paper tried to do vast research on material and spatial perception of side interface of a sample underground street based on virtual reality, but the way that present it, is not good and as an academic paper! So, for consideration for publication needs Major Correction.

 

Comments:

 

- The paper needs English proof. 

 

- The content of the paper is not structured well. Authors need to consider Guide for Author and structure the content of the paper based on it.

 

- The results (main findings) are not clearly presented in Abstract as well as Conclusion.

 

- Literature Review, just cited some research related to underground streets, but not represent the variables or what they have examined previously.

 

- In Abstract, authors named 4 case study (the bold one in following sentence):

 “This study investigated underground streets in Shanghai, Hohhot, and Fukuoka, Japan….” But in Method section explained that a prototype underground street is considered for research:

“A typical underground street case was used as the prototype of the experimental scene ….”

 

- In method section, some details and information’s are duplicated in Tables. Tables usually are used for additional details or brief ones.

 

- In method and all the text, used Subject instead of Participant, that’s not common and its better to replace subject with participants. 

 

- In result section, page 9: the way that present regression results are not common: 

Statistical results can be summarized in a table.

 

- Discussion section again represents some result and related tables and figures. The discussion section just discusses about main results and comparison it with previous related researches. 

So better to restructure this section. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is improved from its previous version. A clean paper instead of the track changes and deletions while showing the changes in different colours could have made the paper more readable. The authors need to look into the following.

The research gap and justification should be articulated in the introduction.

In the methodology- data analysis aspects were undermined. The details of factor analyses and ANOVA should be articulated.

In the results section- Table 6 should be reframed to separate the loading factors and Eigen or variance values. They are different and explain different things. In one Table they might confuse the readers.

The formula used for ranking (equation 1) and the principles used should be supported by evidence from the literature. If it is a generally accepted principle, then it should be explained.

The results presented in bullet points [(Table 10-14, Figures 2 and 3), section 4.2: Relationship between the physical independent variables of the scene and the psychological perception of the influence of as the dependent variable] are confusing. Therefore should be more clearly articulated.

Section 6.2 may be termed as Implications instead of suggestions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for your time and corrections. It seem better now and acceptable for publication. 

Author Response

Thank you for your advice, which has benefited me a lot.