Delving into Hearing Threshold of the Delay Gap of Initial Reflection in a Room by Using the Response of Cortical Brainwaves

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: - In the Abstract section, it is not recommended to present results. This section must contain the purpose and a brief description of the work; avoid the numerical results.

Response 1:  The numerical results have been removed from the abstract section.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have corrected in the re-submitted file.

Comments 2: - Why trumpet and cello are chosen as audio sources?

Response 2:  The reason of choosing trumpet and cello was added in Line 176-191.

Comments 3: - Are 17 subjects enough for the statistical significance of the study?

Response 3:   The amounts of subjects in JND experiments was added in Line 222-229.

Comments 4: - It is necessary to improve the quality of figures 2, 7, 8, and 9.

Response 4:   Figures 2, 7, 8, and 9 have been improved in the re-submitted file, but the figure number have been changed to be 4, 9, 10 and 12.

Comments 5: - Figure 5 is incomplete, as the X-axis is unlabeled.

Response 5:   Figure 5 has been corrected, but the figure number have been changed to be 4.

Comments 6: - The equations presentation is inconsistent (Eq 1 vs Eqs 2,3)

Response 6:   The equations presentation has been corrected in the re-submitted file.

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:  Introduction

As a suggestion I believe that the first paragraph should be placed at the end of the introduction. In my opinion at the beginning a background should be explained and after that the questions without answer.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have corrected in the re-submitted file. The mistakes at the beginning of introduction has been corrected in Line 28-46.

Comments 2:  The EEG items: N1, N2, must be explained. How these authors assessed this measurements? Are the sample of these studies musicians? Elderly? Young? Child? Could age influence this responses?

Response 2:   The symbol of EEG items were interpret in Line 69-70, and Figure 1.

Comments 3:  Methods

Why did you choose these instruments instead others or a song or a speech?

Response 3:   To choose the musical instruments as the sound source because of integrating the relationship between subjective evaluation in a concert hall and brain waves.

Comments 4:  How did you select the sample? Which are the inclusion and exclusion criteria?

Response 4:    In the continuous JND experiments, 5 subjects obviously stopped to give responses to continuous cueing of ITDG variation in the middle of experiments, or successively responding to the operating staff after every stimulus, which data were excluded from the calculation of JND. Nevertheless, the data of brainwaves of all participants were inclusive since their psychological results were accepted.

Comments 5:  Line 170-181: are results. Line 203-207 are results too.

The figures and tables (and their explanations) should be placed at results section, they are not methodology.

Response 5:    The results of two experiments have been moved to the correct paragraph.

Comments 6:  Line 198: “17 subjects” and line 302 “12 participants” which is correct?

Response 6:    The subjective running IDTG experiments had 17 subjects’ data were accepted in the first stage in this study. However, the CBW recordings in the second stage were collected by 12 participants, since around 10 individual samples were suitable to link subjective evaluation in a concert hall in our serial experience.

Comments 7:  Who collect the data, when, how (one, twice...)? how was the participant: sitting, blinded, lights on/off (for example)? Please explain the procedure.

Response 7:    The supplements were located in Line 310-314, and the participants requirements were interpreted in Line 222-229.

Comments 8:  Methodology sections and results section are mixed. Bot should be rewritten.

Response 8:  The results of two experiments have been moved to the correct paragraph.

Comments 9:  Discussion is appropriate.

Response 9:  Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. But I have updated the coordinative range and confirmed it in a new Figure 11.