Reflections on the Limited Pervasiveness of Augmented Reality in Industrial Sectors
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please, improve section 3. It is not clear what kind of contribution do you present in this survey? Please, clarify the research questions and submit results and suggestions for each question. Also I recommend to submit some directions for discussions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your efforts in evaluating our paper.
We tried to address all the points you mentioned for getting our paper at the proper level for the publication.
1.
"Please, improve section 3. It is not clear what kind of contribution do you present in this survey? Please, clarify the research questions and submit results and suggestions for each question. Also I recommend to submit some directions for discussions."
A discussion has been added (4) and the research question has been better clarified in the abstract of the paper. Moreover, some of the topics have been better supported with more references in the literature study/introduction section.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents an analysis on why AR technology has not been yet fully applied in the industrial sector and presents a survey to evaluate the opinion of the employees in the industry about three AR applications in three different areas (automotive industry, manufacturing industry, and railway industry).
The paper lacks a proper literature review. The introduction should be extended with more details about previous works. Only 13 paper are mentioned, whereas the field of virtual interactions, 3D technology and more recently AR/VR has been intensively studied.
Authors should include some papers in the literature review in the area of AR/VR for industrial collaboration and guidance such as:
M. L. Chenechal, T. Duval, V. Gouranton, J. Royan, B. Arnaldi, Vishnu: Virtual Immersive Support for HelpiNg Users an interaction paradigm for collaborative remote guiding in mixed reality, in: Collaborative Virtual Environments (3DCVE), 2016 IEEE Third VR International Workshop on
Jetter, J., Eimecke, J., & Rese, A. (2018). Augmented reality tools for industrial applications: What are potential key performance indicators and who benefits?. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 18-33.
Anton, D, Kurillo G., and Bajcsy R. "User experience and interaction performance in 2D/3D telecollaboration." Future Generation Computer Systems (2017).
Egger-Lampl, S., Gerdenitsch, C., Deinhard, L., Schatz, R., & Hold, P. (2019, June). Assembly Instructions with AR: Towards measuring Interactive Assistance Experience in an Industry 4.0 Context. In 2019 Eleventh International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX) (pp. 1-3). IEEE.
Similar papers should be included to provide a background for the study and for comparison on which aspects your results are innovative.
The authors should check the quality of the figures, Figures 1 and 3 look blurry.
I also miss some more details on the three applications analyzed. It would be interesting to have at least one paragraph for each application explaining the devices used, the software architectures, the technologies applied and presenting some details about how the interaction with them works.
The results presented also need a deeper analysis. Likert scales such as the ones used to survey the participants provide answers in a discrete range (0 to 5) in this case it´s appropriate to present results as in Figure 3 and also show the results in box plots with mean, median, std, etc... The distribution of the scores might be more informative and this way it is possible to detect outliers and opinion patters from the participants.
Finally, as there are three groups from different industries, if possible, survey answers should be analyzed using statistical tools (ANOVA, chi square…) to compare whether the perception of the employees from the different industries differ significantly.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your efforts in evaluating our paper.
We tried to address all the points you mentioned for getting our paper at the proper level for the publication.
1.
"The paper lacks a proper literature review. The introduction should be extended with more details about previous works. Only 13 paper are mentioned, whereas the field of virtual interactions, 3D technology and more recently AR/VR has been intensively studied.
Authors should include some papers in the literature review in the area of AR/VR for industrial collaboration and guidance such as:
M. L. Chenechal, T. Duval, V. Gouranton, J. Royan, B. Arnaldi, Vishnu: Virtual Immersive Support for HelpiNg Users an interaction paradigm for collaborative remote guiding in mixed reality, in: Collaborative Virtual Environments (3DCVE), 2016 IEEE Third VR International Workshop on
Jetter, J., Eimecke, J., & Rese, A. (2018). Augmented reality tools for industrial applications: What are potential key performance indicators and who benefits?. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 18-33.
Anton, D, Kurillo G., and Bajcsy R. "User experience and interaction performance in 2D/3D telecollaboration." Future Generation Computer Systems (2017).
Egger-Lampl, S., Gerdenitsch, C., Deinhard, L., Schatz, R., & Hold, P. (2019, June). Assembly Instructions with AR: Towards measuring Interactive Assistance Experience in an Industry 4.0 Context. In 2019 Eleventh International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX) (pp. 1-3). IEEE.
Similar papers should be included to provide a background for the study and for comparison on which aspects your results are innovative."
27 new references (including the ones suggested by the reviewer) has been added in the new version in order to expand the literature part of the paper.
2.
"The authors should check the quality of the figures, Figures 1 and 3 look blurry."
Figures 1 and 3 have been improved in terms of quality.
3.
"I also miss some more details on the three applications analyzed. It would be interesting to have at least one paragraph for each application explaining the devices used, the software architectures, the technologies applied and presenting some details about how the interaction with them works."
Probably this point is the one we developed less. A picture has been added to give an idea of the features for each AR solutions. A small description has been moreover added in order to offer a bit more details regarding them. However, a full descripition of the three AR solutions will be offered in the next paper we are writing.
4.
"The results presented also need a deeper analysis. Likert scales such as the ones used to survey the participants provide answers in a discrete range (0 to 5) in this case it´s appropriate to present results as in Figure 3 and also show the results in box plots with mean, median, std, etc... The distribution of the scores might be more informative and this way it is possible to detect outliers and opinion patters from the participants.
Finally, as there are three groups from different industries, if possible, survey answers should be analyzed using statistical tools (ANOVA, chi square…) to compare whether the perception of the employees from the different industries differ significantly."
In Figure 3 (now 4) mean value and standard deviation have been added for each parameters of each sectors.
As suggested by the reviewer an ANOVA analysis has been conducted to compare whether the perception of the employees differ significantly.
Reviewer 3 Report
The main purpose of the paper is to investigate why Augmented Reality has not yet successfully conquest the industrial market, without finding a wider application in industries. The method is to point out what are the limiting factors, investigating what has been done or not in companies. The study implies three economic/industrial sectors: manufacturing, automotive and railway.
The main obstacles to deployment in companies have been identified. Main causes are the lack of inner skills in the AR domain and the difficulties to tackle such technological projects and to conduct change management in the daily working life. The paper advances insights and ideas that one could suspect but it's a good thing to have shown and measure this.
The second purpose of the paper is to suggest some ways to further a better deployment of AR in the industry world. The proposed ideas are relevant and can help companies to introduce AR in their business.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your efforts in evaluating our paper and for the kind words of appreciations.
An extra-English review has been performed in order to remove grammar typos.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed this reviewers comments and the quality of the paper has been improved from the previous version.
Just two final comments, from the papers, suggested only one of them has been included.
Please revise the References section, it seems that two different citation styles are been applied at the same time.
For example:
Jetter, J., Eimecke, J., & Rese, A. (2018). Augmented reality tools for industrial applications: What are 317 potential key performance indicators and who benefits? Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 18–33. 318 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.054
(long author last names and initials for names)
L, S., D, H., S, E., W, B.-B., J, R., & M.B, H. (2014). Differential effects of head-mounted displays on 320 visual performance. Ergonomics, 57, 1.
(both name and last name just with initial)
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your efforts in re-evaluating our paper.
We tried to address all the points you mentioned for getting our paper at the proper level for the publication.
1.
"Please revise the References section, it seems that two different citation styles are been applied at the same time."
The reference style has been corrected.
2.
"Just two final comments, from the papers, suggested only one of them has been included."
These 2 references have been added to the reference list now:
Egger-Lampl, S., Gerdenitsch, C., Deinhard, L., Schatz, R., & Hold, P. (2019, June). Assembly Instructions with AR: Towards measuring Interactive Assistance Experience in an Industry 4.0 Context. In 2019 Eleventh International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX) (pp. 1-3). IEEE.
Jetter, J., Eimecke, J., & Rese, A. (2018). Augmented reality tools for industrial applications: What are potential key performance indicators and who benefits?. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 18-33.
