A Technical Device for Determining the Predispositions of Students—Air Traffic Controllers and Pilots during Multitasking Training
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1． The authors were recommended to revise the abstract section to provide more information about the method and experimental results.
2． The keywords were not consistent with the abstract section. For instance, I am not quite understand why did authors use the term error rate in your study.
3． The section Materials and Methods was mainly concentrated on the materials and experimental related methods. Please add more explanations methods in a theory manner.
4． How did authors determine the 67 subjects concerning with the statement “67 subjects participated in the testing”. Moreover, was it reasonable to only select 67 objects for conducting your study?
5． Minor comments: some figures contained too many decimal points (such as the geometric average in figure 9, etc.). Please try to limit the decimal points for the purpose of readability. ‘
6． The following studies were recommended to be properly cited: [1] A deep learning framework of autonomous pilot agent for air traffic controller training. IEEE transactions on human-machine systems. [2] Sensing Data Supported Traffic Flow Prediction via Denoising Schemes and ANN: A Comparison, IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 20, pp. 14317-14328, 2020.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review. We are grateful for your comments you put into maintaining the high quality of our article. We revised the article „ A technical device for determining the predispositions of students - air traffic controllers and pilots during multitasking training” according to your review. Your observations and comments are answered in the attached document. We hope that our corrections met your expectations. If the article will be approved for publication, we will use MDPI service for English revisions. In case of further comments, we are ready to process them. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
doc. Ing. Matej Antoško, PhD., Ing. Paed-IGIP
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
there are many kinds of research on the topic of human reaction time.
authors used a monitor and keyboard for achieving students' reaction time.
the novelty is not clear in this research.
multitasking training is not suitable for research papers.
effect of reaction time on "air traffic controller" position must be cleared and described in this paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review. We are grateful for your comments you put into maintaining the high quality of our article. We revised the article „ A technical device for determining the predispositions of students - air traffic controllers and pilots during multitasking training” according to your review. Your observations and comments are answered in the attached document. We hope that our corrections met your expectations. If the article will be approved for publication, we will use MDPI service for English revisions. In case of further comments, we are ready to process them. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
doc. Ing. Matej Antoško, PhD., Ing. Paed-IGIP
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Review comments are attached as a separate file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review. We are grateful for your comments you put into maintaining the high quality of our article. We revised the article „ A technical device for determining the predispositions of students - air traffic controllers and pilots during multitasking training” according to your review. Your observations and comments are answered in the attached document. We hope that our corrections met your expectations. If the article will be approved for publication, we will use MDPI service for English revisions. In case of further comments, we are ready to process them. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
doc. Ing. Matej Antoško, PhD., Ing. Paed-IGIP
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In this paper, the article "A technical device for determining the predispositions of students - air traffic controllers and pilots during multitasking training" focused on developing and testing a technical device for measuring the relative error rates of students during multitasking in preparation for employment, not only that, but also created a test sample from a certain number of subjects - students at an aviation college - using a questionnaire with a questionnaire for successful completion of a stress test, and finally, discussing initial experiences with the performance of the proposed technical device . This paper is somewhat novel and specific to the subject of study, but there are still some issues with this paper. The following are the issues in this manuscript.
(1) In lines 126-127, the text mentioned that "The device itself is made as durable and easily transportable". It is suggested to explain from which point of view the equipment can be seen to be durable, and if it is easy to transport, it is suggested to give the dimensions of the equipment in Figure 1.
(2) In lines 150-151, the text mentioned that "The safety time margin, when the buttons are non-responsive while the task changes from one type to another is set to 0.2 seconds" and suggested explaining why it is 0.2 seconds.
(3) The content of heading 2.1 in line 125 was repeated with that of heading 2.2 in line 166.
(4) In lines 169-170, the article mentioned that "The window is divided into 3 main regions: excluding the region for the control buttons information text region and three graphic regions", and suggested that it be indicated which three areas the window is.
(5) It is recommended that the parameters in the content of Figure 4 be explained in relation to each other.
(6) Heading 3.1 does not appear in the text, but heading 3.2 does, so we suggest adding a heading.
(7) In lines 303-304, the article mentioned that "which is a limit of 2 seconds for 1 task and the maximum number of errors was set at 50" and suggests a basis for this.
(8) In Tables 2 and 3, as well as in Equation 1, it is recommended that the parameter units be given.
(9) In line 324, suggest explaining the meaning of "ER=2.(300+4.50)=1000".
(10) In lines 353-355, the article mentioned that "When comparing the times and number of errors in subjects with the longest test time. a correlation is not clear. 7. 41. 45. 46. 54. 66. and 67 needed the longest test times. but a significant correlation was observed only in subjects 54 and 67" and suggested that a graph or table and relevant data to demonstrate the degree of correlation.
(11) In lines 359-361, the article mentioned "Looking at the overall test group. it can be observed that most of the tested fall into two groups-fast-reacting. but with a higher error rate. and slower-reacting with a lower error rate", suggesting a table or graph to distinguish the two groups of subjects and give comparative results.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review. We are grateful for your comments you put into maintaining the high quality of our article. We revised the article „ A technical device for determining the predispositions of students - air traffic controllers and pilots during multitasking training” according to your review. Your observations and comments are answered in the attached document. We hope that our corrections met your expectations. If the article will be approved for publication, we will use MDPI service for English revisions. In case of further comments, we are ready to process them. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
doc. Ing. Matej Antoško, PhD., Ing. Paed-IGIP
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
My comments have been addressed.
