Situational Awareness Assessment of Drivers Boosted by Eye-Tracking Metrics: A Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well organised and is based on specific but relevant topic. Here are some notes which authors should look at:

Two times the same keyword “eye-tracking” is used in text line 114. Moreover, comma should be used out of quotation marks i.e., “SA”, “situational awareness”, … as comma is not a part of the keyword.

English should be reviewed, i.e.: For this literature review were selected 38 reports >> A total of 38 reports were selected for this literature review (text line 151).

Text in Fig. 1 is hardly readable, please increase the picture size or text size.

Please correct the journal title in Table 1: Transportation research part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Accident Analysis & Prevention; Proceedings of IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (use capital letters).

Text line 190: “with 358 citations in all” >> with 358 citations in total.

Tet line 191: “(the USA)” >> (USA)

Table 2: Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident Insurance (IFA) (Germany) (use capital letters).

The size of Fig. 2 should be increased for better readability. Moreover, a part of this figure is missed (to the right of “eye-track…”). Orange and green categories are not titled.

Fig. 6 goas after Fig. 2; please correct the numbering or figures location.

Text size in Fig. 6 should be increased.

What do authors mean claiming “positively correlations” (text line 276)? How this was obtained or evaluated?

Two sentences in text lines 281-285 are about the same.

Eye-tracking based analysis is missing for driving simulators part.

Discussion chapter does not correspond to specific analysis including general trends and highlights.

English is good enough; however, some places need to be corrected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This could make an interesting contribution, especially when non-technical skills training inclusive of situational awareness preparation becomes critical for the management of socio-technical systems in medicine. Please apply a wider coverage of the sample via more combinations of search queries. Presently there are too few articles identified to perform a thorough literature analysis and a discussion of the research directions. The research process shall flesh out using the PRISMA 2020 protocol. However, there are several items missing according to the checklist of PRISMA 2020

Study risk of bias assessment: Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

Effect measures: Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g. risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results. Pay attention to the intervention outcome instead of the research design of individual studies from the sample.

Reporting bias assessment: Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I offer acceptance at this round.