When Taekwondo Meets Artificial Intelligence: The Development of Taekwondo

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Your topic is interesting and "hot". The manuscript contains the necessary information for the theoretical framework of your work -in the sense that it is not a purely technical study-, however its length (27 pages) is a disadvantage. Therefore, I suggest a different organisation of the manuscript which might be more attractive to readers.

Abstract

No comments

Introduction

Line 38: specify the "it". Do you refer to sports?

Lines 43-48: The significance of 4th industrial revolution has been made quiet clear and in these two phrases, the message the authors are attempting to convey reads more like a repetition of the text above. So it is suggested that the 2 phrases be removed.

Line 52: correct "are had" to frequent disputes have taken place...

Lines 59-67: it is suggested to unite this paragraph with the previous one. 

Lines 68-71: this phrase reads again like a repetition of previous information. It is suggested to be removed. 

Lines 71-78: Add a short phrase like "Based on the example of using electronic chest protectors and some technical issues that remain to be dealt with and optimized, it becomes clear that taekwondo would benefit from integrating the innovative technologies of the fourth industrial revolution. In fact, South Korea....." continue as it is.  

 

Section 2: Literature review methodology

I suggest a different organization of the sections. The study's aim is to present the process of developing and testing an AI-based training, analysis and evaluation system for taekwondo. So, the current Results section 3 that present the results of the literature review are suggested to be replaced by the whole process the authors followed in order to develop their system. The current section 2 could be removed and current section 3 could be moved to the introduction, which should be composed of sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, the section referring to Motion recognition technology -it is suggested to delete the title of section 3.3.3-, 3D reconstruction technology, Metaverse technology, and section 3.3.4. If desirable, the authors could keep Table 1, 2, 3 as supplement material and include within the text of the Introduction, Figure 1, 3, 5, 6. Figure 2 and 4 could be removed from the manuscript. The remaining subsections of section 3 could be used as parts of the results of the study, starting from section 3.4.

 

Section 3.1.: reference to application of AI technology in sports is a secondary purpose of this manuscript. Also, since the manuscript is considerably long, it is suggested that Table 1 is preserved, but lines 116-122 and 124-131 be removed. A brief opening phrase to introduce Table 1 will be sufficient.

 

Lines 119-121: again repetition of information presented in the Introduction. please remove it.

 

(similar approach as suggested in overall remark about Section 2)

 

Lines 151-156: why refer to AI integration in soccer analysis? this has already been described in Table 1. If the authors wish, add the parameters that could be analyzed ny SAP match analysis in Table 1 and remove this paragraph and figure 2.

 

Sections 3.2. and 3.3, sub-sections 3.3.1, 3..3.2: In my opinion, these sections belong in the Introduction. Table 2 could be a supplement table. The authors are advised to reduce the length of these sections -there are already the bullet points- in 2 or maximum 3 paragraphs. The reader is interested in reading what the authors have developed, he does not need to be convinced in an extreme way about why AI technology would enhance taekwondo. 

Section 3.4. title: it is suggested to change to something like "3.1. Description of the system process for the development of the metaverse-based virtual taekwondo coaching platform". This would extend from line 314 to 352.

 

Section 3.4.1 is suggested to change to "3.2. Process of technical development of the system" (enter-change one line).

3.2.1 Development of 3D reconstruction technology." extending from lines 355 to 374. 

 

Line 375: change this to "3.2.2. Development of 3D data creation process ....", extending from lines 376 to 401.

 

Lines 402-403: change this to "3.2.3. Development of 3D human motion features...." extendin from lines 404 to 438.

 

Section 3.4.2 should change to 3.3 keeping the current title. It is suggested that subsection 3.4.3 be incorporated in the new 3.3. section along with table 4.

 

Section 5 "conclusions" = this section is the discussion of the  study and it should be integrated with the previous section. The authors are advised to create a new brief paragraph which could start like "This study presented the development of an AI taekwondo performance improve-556 ment analysis and evaluation system through AI-based motion tracking analysis and a 557 metaverse-based virtual taekwondo pumsae/sparring coaching platform. " 

Then continue with naming the different development phases in the suggested Methods and end with a closing statement about the significance of coverging the fourth industrial techologies for the advancement of taekwondo.

Author Response

We deeply appreciate your kind comments.

Thank you very much for your detailed and constructive comments, which helped us correct and improve our manuscript.

 "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Fig. 10 - the hieroglyphs must be translated into English (line 330)

• Fig. 11 – must be translated

• It is necessary to clarify the contradiction in the work: in the sentence (lines 441-444) it is stated that "training simulator for the South Korean national taekwondo team, which was developed" and at the end of the sentence there is a reference to Fig. 18. However, Figure 18 is signed as "Proposed example of taekwondo XR training simulator". That is, it is not clear whether this is an existing system or the authors propose it.

• As a consequence of the previous one, figures 19, 20, 21 contain statements about the existing system. In addition to these features. No in-text links.

• Fig. 18 and Fig. 22 look very similar. I recommend reworking them so that Fig. 18 does not repeat the upper part of Fig. 22. But the hieroglyphs should still be replaced/duplicated in English.

• The general impression of the work is positive, but the number of mentions/repetitions of the fourth industrial revolution and artificial intelligence seems exaggerated.

Author Response

We deeply appreciate your kind comments.

Thank you very much for your detailed and constructive comments, which helped us correct and improve our manuscript.

 "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The manuscript has been considerably improved after the revision. It is ready to be considered eligible for publication now.

I have only 3 comments for you to take under consideration that do not require that the manuscript goes under review again -just address them, if you agree.

Comments

Line 287: Figure 13, "reconnstruction pipeline"= the fields in yellow background are not visible. Consider enlarging the text. Also, the term next to the green field "developed by us for pipeline" = the word pipeline is truncated, please address that.

Lines 327-328: make sure to completely remove the deleted words because they are still visible.

 

Line 346: Figure 17: it is suggested to add bullets in the right part of the Figure, for better visibility of the benefits of the proposed performance analysis.

The same could occur in Figures 18 and 19.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer’s Comments

 

The manuscript has been considerably improved after the revision. It is ready to be considered eligible for publication now. I have only 3 comments for you to take under consideration that do not require that the manuscript goes under review again -just address them, if you agree.

 

Response:

We deeply appreciate your kind comments, and are very pleased and grateful for your nuanced and detailed criticism, which enables us to publish a good study. I have incorporated all the corrections you provided in the figures and text. We are deeply appreciative of your review.

 

 

*Comments 1. Line 287: Figure 13, "reconnstruction pipeline"= the fields in yellow background are not visible. Consider enlarging the text. Also, the term next to the green field "developed by us for pipeline" = the word pipeline is truncated, please address that.

Response 1:

Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised Figure 13 as per the suggested modifications.

 

 

*Comments 2. Lines 327-328: make sure to completely remove the deleted words because they are still visible.

Response 2:

We deeply appreciate your detailed comments. We have removed the sentence.

 

 

*Comments 3. Line 346: Figure 17: it is suggested to add bullets in the right part of the Figure, for better visibility of the benefits of the proposed performance analysis. The same could occur in Figures 18 and 19.

Response 3:

Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the descriptions as bullet points in the right portions of Figures 17, 18, and 19.

 

 

Once again, we thank you for your valuable and constructive comments, which helped us correct and improve our manuscript.