Presence Effects in Virtual Reality Based on User Characteristics: Attention, Enjoyment, and Memory
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors designed a study for investigating presence effects between user characteristics and presence effects andthe consumption of traditional media and their perceived presence in a VR setting.
The proposed study is interesting but there are some points that the authors should better discuss.
The authors should be better described the novelties of their study with respect to existing ones. In particular, the author should discuss limitation and cons of the examined approaches. Furthermore, the authors should provide more details and discussion about the obtained results. The Discussion section also needs to be improved by analyzing the outcome of evaluation section.
I suggest to further analyze more recent approaches about the examined topics. In particular, I suggest the following papers to further investigate applications (i.e. recommendation) that can benefits from the use of IoT and Software-defined networking:
1) An emotional recommender system for music. IEEE Intelligent Systems.
2) Recognizing unexplained behavior in network traffic. In Network Science and Cybersecurity (pp. 39-62). Springer, New York, NY.
Finally, I suggest to perform a linguistic revision.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments!
Please find the attached response letter to the reviewer. We have analyzed your comments carefully and treated the manuscript accordingly. Our answers to your comments are presented below in red color.
Kind regards,
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The work is decent. However, it is encouraged that the authors clarify some minor issues as follows:
+ The results of the research come from the Q&A survey, instead of technical contributions. With the limit of participants (53 students), it is unclear whether the statistics represent correctly the VR effects for all people groups (different countries, vision, aging, ....), which is essential for a comprehensive survey (i.e., Some properties in Fig.1 are not in consideration)
+ Clarify the key claim "there is no evidence that attention is associated with enjoyment or memory"
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments!
Please find the attached response letter to the reviewer. We have analyzed your comments carefully and treated the manuscript accordingly. Our answers to your comments are presented below in red color.
Kind regards,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript the authors present an experiment from which they try to investigate relationships between user characteristics and presence in the context of VR.
The manuscript is in general very compact without many details and analysis on the algorithmic procedures rather than the experimental procedure which is analyzed in detail.
The limited explanations of this work combined with the very restricted experiment are the big weaknesses.
First of all, the related work is presented very briefly. It also seems from a couple of references that there is already some scientific research that is conducted within the same field but never mentioned or compared with the authors’ experiment.
Secondly, the experiment itself seems extremely limited concerning both the scenario as well as the participants. In my humble opinion there should be at least a number of different setups (VR stories) having alternative scenarios in order to conclude to data concerning presence within the scenario.
Furthermore, the number of participants seem to be limited. For example the group of people categorized as HIPV (High Immersion / Positive Valence towards VR) consists of 12 people.
Moreover, despite the fact that the analysis is performed in groups of Immersion/Valence and in groups of genders there is no evidence about the connection between them (how many male/female in each of the Immersion/Valence groups).
Table 2 is inconsistent related to what is mentioned about the Immersion/Valence groups in lines 215-227. Line 220 has a wrong abbr (HIPV instead of HINV).
Figures 6 and 7 have a wrong abbr in their title (into the graph).
Despite the fact that the experiment seems to be very interesting concerning the outcomes it seems that it is very limited in order to have soundness in the results. The connection of presence (emotional state) to the gender VS use of technology (VR) seems at first awkward. There should be some kind of outcome on how someone can benefit from the outcomes of one’s experiment.
Finally, the outcome that the High Immersion / Positive Valence towards VR group performs better considering the presence in a VR environment compared to the opposite kinds of groups does not seem like an experimental evaluation result rather than a logical assumption.
As a conclusion, despite the fact that the experiment seems to be well structured and described in detail, it seems that there is a lot of work to be done in order to have more research-oriented results that can possibly be beneficiary for the research community. At least a couple of other alternative scenarios, including totally differentiated setup are needed, while the experiment should be conducted to a more broad audience.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments!
Please find the attached response letter to the reviewer. We have analyzed your comments carefully and treated the manuscript accordingly. Our answers to your comments are presented below in red color.
Kind regards,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I think that the authors have addressed all my concerns.
Author Response
Thank you.
