Tactual Articulatory Feedback on Gestural Input

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting paper looking at a series of experiments around tactile feedback for gesture input (although focused mostly on mouse or mouse-like input devices). 

Previous literature is discussed in detail across a range of related work and topics. 

The experiments are well-designed and clearly described. Results are presented clearly.

The discussion is reasonably detailed and covers the results and some of their application in gesture-based interfaces. 

However, the paper seems to lack discussion relevant to the venue - whether the journal itself or the specific special issue to which it has been submitted. It would benefit from some additional focus on this. How is this work useful to researchers and practitioners in the field? What are the potential applications within music and the arts? 

Author Response

I am grateful for the reviewer's comments and recommendations.

A very important point was made, about the relevance for the musical touch. In fact, this research was carried out as an extension of earlier work on active tactual feedback in musical instruments, and led to other work also in the context of musical applications! It was only for practical reasons carried out with a standard computer mouse, but the motivation is to apply this in musical gestures.

This musical context has been accentuated in the re-submission of this paper, as well as many other edits and improvements.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper explores the effect of tactual feedback on some mouse-based interactions. The paper has particularly clear and interesting review of related concepts and studies (I am not an expert, so I learned a lot here). The experiments are presented in a very clear and complete manner, and the conclusions are also clear and supported by the work.

I believe this paper will be of interest to many who see the potential for tactual feedback and this work is especially suited to this journal topic involving gestures. Therefore, I recommend publishing the paper.

I have only a few suggestions for improvements. First, the introduction stresses gesture *articulation*, as if this is highly meaningful and clarifying to the reader, but "articulation" in this context is not defined until much later. Even a dictionary is unclear on this meaning, referring to motion and control, but isn't that what gesture is to begin with? Perhaps I should be familiar with these various refinements of articulatory, forward, confirmation, etc., but then why explain them so carefully later? A little redundancy, e.g. "We were looking particularly at feedback that supports the articulation, or fine control, of a gesture as it progresses," would set the stage for further explanations that come later.

The step-counting experiment leaves some details to the imagination. After referring to the figure and seeing nothing about steps, I believe that the slider is configured to move in discrete jumps of multiple pixels even when the mouse is moved continuously. But this is not stated, so whatever the interaction, please explain it.

The abstract refers to pleasure in interactions, but this point is not emphasized at the end. I think even some speculation on possible applications and conditions that enhance pleasant interactions should be added.

 

Author Response

I am grateful for the reviewer's comments and recommendations. I have made the definition and introduction of the notion of articulatory feedback clearer, and added a reference to the section where the different feedback types are introduced, to create a tighter link. I used some of the phrase as suggested by the reviewer to define the articulation in relation to fine control of a gesture.

Indeed the step counting experiment (Phase 4) was not very clearly described at all, some important details were missing! I have extended this section, and added a screen shot. I hope this is clearer now.

I went back into my original data and files, and documentation, to bring in more detail about the experiments. This included visiting the original software on an older computer, to remind myself how it was set up, and how it responded (both for the experimenter's part as well as the participant's part).

I have brought the issue of pleasurableness in interaction, as mentioned in the abstract, into the final discussion section. This was indeed an omission, as we state that this is important, but then don't return to that in the end. This is now fixed.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This version of the paper is much improved from the previous one I reviewed. The authors have added useful additional context to better situate the research within the realm of the special issue topic. I feel the paper is now suitable for acceptance within the special issue.