Serious Games for Vision Training Exercises with Eye-Tracking Technologies: Lessons from Developing a Prototype
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article shows a serious game using eye tracker technology. The methodology is well described and the game is innovative and interesting. It might be useful to better describe the steps of the game and the way in which the participants must interact with it. In order to actually test the feasibility and usability of the tool also with children and adolescents, it would be useful to test it with this age group and not just rely on what the participants report. The strengths and limitations of the study are also well described.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The title is 'developing serious games... '. However, there is not enough information about the developed serious game. There is no contents that a suggested serious game have factors or game mechanics for efficient vision training.
2. In the experiment, there is only 5 participants. and two is the professionals and the others are volunteers. For analyzing a serious game, it need more professionals. and this project is for vision therapy, so it need to be tested by vision problem persons.
3. This serious game use and save game play data and eye tracking data. But there is no relationships and analysis in the paper.
4. In Results,
These illustrate the scores describing pragmatic quality aspects (perspicuity, efficiency, and dependability) are excellent, above average, and good, respectively.
: In Table 4, efficiency is good, dependability is good.
: But, In Schrepp et al. [41], the result of dependability is above average,
5. In the discussion, There is no way to improve novelty(above average)
6. In Conclusion,
Authors explained " In the examples, presented and evaluated in this study, we could illustrate the benefits of visualizing the performance of eye movements while playing a game together with measures related to these eye movements", but there is no enough contents in the paper.
"The user experiences of the game evaluated by the potential users in many aspects were considered excellent", it is hard to understand that 5 participants are potential users.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presents a solution for vision training using games described in another paper. The system is tested by 5 participants and some conclusions are detailed.
The paper presents two major problems in my opinion:
1. the games are not described but it simply refers to another paper. This means that it is really difficult to evaluate the tests, without understanding what the games proposed.
2. The tests involved only 5 participants, and it is not clear if the authors intends these participants as expert users (two of them are a professor and a vision teacher) or final users (three of them are students).
The authors must describe in details the aims and goals of the experiment. Have the professor and the vision teacher been involved in the design process of the games?
Moreover the paper must be compared to:
M. Ciman, O. Gaggi, T. M. Sgaramella, L. Nota, M. Bortoluzzi, L. Pinello. Serious Games to Support Cognitive Development in Children with Cerebral Visual Impairment. Springer Mobile Networks and Applications (MONET), 23(6), pages 1703-1714, December 2018.
which used a very similar approach.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
No comment
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors has accepted all the comments of the reviewers and now the paper can be accepted
