Proposal and Evaluation of a Robot to Improve the Cognitive Abilities of Novice Baseball Spectators Using a Method for Selecting Utterances Based on the Game Situation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The following are my comments for improvement of this paper:

1. The background and research problems are not clearly outlined. Please elaborate on the same. Specifically, the paper should present if there is any specific target population or diversity group that can benefit from this research work and why.

2. The authors state – “In Procedure 1, tweets were collected using the Twitter API” – this statement is unclear and is missing essential details. Please re-write this section to clearly discuss the step-by-step methodology that was followed for data collection. Specifically, the authors should state whether they used the Standard Search API or the Advanced Search API of Twitter. As the Twitter API has rate limits, so this section should also present the step(s) which were taken to address the rate limits

3. In the context of working with Tweets, how was bot-generated content detected and eliminated? For instance, if a bot account on Twitter tweets the same content (with the same set of hashtags) multiple times – this could affect the overall results of the data analysis. How were such scenarios addressed?

4. In Section 3.2.4, the authors have discussed the relevance of using social media data but the discussion is missing supporting references. Consider supporting this discussion with relevant references such as https://doi.org/10.3390/info14090484 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.osnem.2019.100049

5. The authors state – “However, owing to the influence of COVID-19 and the widespread availability of games on the Internet, there are increasing opportunities for spectators to watch sports games on their own”. In this context, the influence of COVID-19 is not clear.

 

6. No justification is provided regarding the usage of the Sota robot. Why wasn’t a similar robot, for instance, Nao not used?

Author Response

We deeply appreciate the time and expertise you invested in reviewing our manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents a method for improving the cognitive abilities of novice baseball spectators by utilizing a conversational robot. Overall, the problem definition and proposed solution are feasible and hold reference value. However, there is still room for improvement in some areas:

1. The introduction should briefly introduce the methods used in the study, providing readers with a preliminary understanding.

2. The introduction part could expand on the related research on methods for improving sports spectating abilities or auxiliary sports watching, so as to make the introduction of the development history of the field more comprehensive and enrich the background information of the paper.

3. Summarize the main objectives and innovations at the end of the introduction, rather than using a sentence highly similar to the abstract (Lines 60-62).

4. Adjust the size of Figure 2 to enhance visual appeal.

5. The content of section 3.2.3 is obviously insufficient to support this section, as it should involve many cases. It is suggested to explain the rules of prediction and evaluation in detail and provide appropriate examples.

6. The optimized hyperparameters should be given specifically in line 324.

7. Section 4.2 lacks evaluation content for psychological empathy.

8. Section 4.3 should briefly explain what the Mann–Whitney U test is and provide a citation.

9. In Section 4.3, explain what different P value sizes usually imply.

10. Move the discussion of research limitations to the Discussion section, rather than the Conclusion.

11. Address more limitations and future prospects, such as single data source, insufficient sample representation (limited number of participants who are all students), and future research directions such as verifying the applicability to different types of sports, etc.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English proficiency demonstrated in this article is average, and some minor mistakes are needed to be modified.

Author Response

We deeply appreciate the time and expertise you invested in reviewing our manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised their paper as per all my comments and feedback. I do not have any additional comments at this point. I recommend the publication of the paper in its form. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript has comprehensively addressed each question and suggestion raised in the comments. The authors have elaborated on each modification in their responses and provided corresponding textual supplements, as well as revising and improving relevant sections. Specifically, the authors have added and supplemented many explanations and details according to the review comments, such as the implementation details in Section 4, algorithm parameter settings, etc., making the content more complete. They have revised and rewritten unclear expressions pointed out by the reviewers, such as moving the summary to the conclusion section, suggesting directions for improvement of platform deficiencies, etc. More references have been incorporated to support the thesis, improving the credibility and rigor of the paper.