Discomfort Glare Perception by Drivers—Establishing a Link between Subjective and Psychophysiological Assessment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is a deserves publication after some improvements.
The results are interesting which include also measured results.
The following points should be improved before proceeding with the publications:
The authors used the appropriate techniques for analysis of the research objects in order to meet aims of the study. How accurate is the measurement of ECG, Breathing frequency, SCR, vEOG? How is the test-retest reliability?
The structure of this research is quite complicated .Please describe the proposed method using a Flowchart in which the steps are summarized. This can help the reproducibility of the method by users.
Please explain the speed of the opposite car corresponding to shorter than 300ms and longer than 1second? It is used to judge the rationality of the experiment.
Moreover, a general question arises. For glare perception and the psychophysiological measure. the difference between using references[5-9] and 3.6 is a question worth discussing.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
we would like to thank you for your valuable comments that we believe helped us to improve our manuscript.
We have prepared a list of changes that we introduced into our manuscript based on your comments. Please see the attachment.
Best regards
Ladislav Stanke
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this article, through an experimental research, the driver-perceived glare is studied, more specifically the linkage between subjective and objective glare measures and the light source properties. Different car headlamps were used as light sources in a laboratory experiment. The article is carefully written and the work conducted is really interesting and innovative but some minor points require revision.
To link the subjective and objective measures of driver perceived-glare, some psychophysiological measures are used (SCR, HRV, vEOG). The methodological precautions for collecting and processing this type of data should be better presented (for example, to measure HRV, which methodological caution should be taken regarding coffee consumption and pills use…). Is the duration of glaring exposure is sufficient to observe a variation in the physiological parameters especially the HRV? (as far as I know, cardiac signal should be collected under 300 seconds to be able to extract HRV and comment LF/HF ratio). It is written that the authors use HRV acounting for change in breathing: please explain how did you proceed to limit breathing influence, which are the benefits and limits of such your approach? Other cardiac measurement can be used for shorter durations like for example evoked cardiac response.
To help the reader, I can first suggest to better describe the experimental design (in my opinion, it seems to be a pre-experimental research design). The experimental plan is not well describe. A sub-section should be extracted from the procedure description to better describe the dependant and independent variables studied and the hypothesis that can be formulated thanks to the state of the art.
In the procedure, you should also mention which information have been brought to the attention of the participants with regard to the ethical rules for conducting this research.
Regarding the low number of participants in this experiment, I am wondering if the age variable should not be used as a co-variable in the various linear-fixed-models. It can change the results obtained.
Minor comments
Abstract, line 20: the acronym EDA should be developed. As it is not reemployed, the acronym is not useful.
Page 7, line 295: explain how did you select the four most representative glares (which criteria was used?). More generally, through the details given in the section 2.3.1, the research conducted loses its rigor. Please revise carefully this section to avoid the “Do It Yourself” effect. in this part you should better introduce the best practices regarding physiological data pre-processing.
Pages 10 to 12: please check if the figures format is satisfying the journal criteria. They seems to be extracted from a statistical tool and I am not convinced it is the best way to present them.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
we would like to thank you for your valuable comments that we believe helped us to improve our manuscript tremendously.
We have prepared a list of changes that we introduced into our manuscript based on your comments. Please see the attachment.
Best regards
Ladislav Stanke
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
