Personalized Virtual Reality Environments for Intervention with People with Disability
, Javier Pereira Loureiro 1 and Thais Pousada García 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The abstract is too vague and fails to explain what is the novelty of the work. What is proposed is not new, HTC VIVE & Leap have already been used before for rehabilitation, with other researchers also developing their own VR Environments. Not even allowing to collect information for therapists can be considered new, it has also been proposed before.
The introduction has almost no references, despite claiming a bibliographic analysis has been made. in fact, this study only has 6 scientific references, the remaining 16 are links, which, in fact, should be footnotes.
Authors make various claims without any support. Additional references should have been added. Multiple works exist. For example:
- https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/9/10/3369
- https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8663653?casa_token=u3gOZePv7wEAAAAA:AnkFE26LdKqpsKa66rBXSD5qM13GhXgeR_YUH6g79Qbhvn2I4EFIUlKzTa_skVzXNNlnyMiJxQ
- https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=8857469
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532046420302136
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031940618301287?casa_token=chDrNWr4JHIAAAAA:OQT3I4iJN62KfgEzk1-iUqnQv5i3-9iNHU9y_LWmWFbT1bUACEVUJFD4Hi_zyzWei70m973Wuw
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003687018300176?casa_token=-mfsTHeoB_EAAAAA:3EzJc1vL2purdAplC1tDpFeN96upoHCTNazIZ34tnIXcQko7KFEhCx33_pwr3enqcJ2z0b7U_g
- https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1545968318820169
- https://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/6/1/e000943.abstract
- https://journals.lww.com/jnnonline/Abstract/2019/04000/Virtual_Reality_and_Cognitive_Rehabilitation_in.9.aspx
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17434440.2018.1425613
Authors fail to explain: what has been done so far according to existing literature! What are the challenges? What is the novelty of the paper?
The scenarios (lines 131 - 138) could be presented as bullets to facilitate understanding.
The questions (lines 152 - 156) could be presented as bullets to facilitate understanding.
The acronym for Virtual Reality is introduced but never used afterward. Consider using VR throughout the paper and not 'virtual reality' time and time again.
Figure 1 seems to be copied from the internet. Why not use the author's own photo? In this regard, why not have a photo with some participants?
Sections 2.2. and 2.3 presents too much detail regarding something that is not particularly essential to the study. Most concepts are well known.
Section 3 should be called VR prototype or similar. Only after 'Perceptions from real users' are some results presented. This could even be combined with the discussion.
Besides, section 3.3 - Perceptions from real users should actually be section 3.4
Line 374 - what is reported are not emotional states. Besides, there is no explanation regarding how the emotional state was measured or even on what scale.
During the discussion, the authors claim that the leap motion is cheap. While that is true, but how about the price of having the HTC VIVE, and a computer to run it? Why not even mention the possibly of using the Oculus Quest, which are considerable cheaper and becoming a trend for VR applications in multiple fields? A discussion on this matter could be usefull!
Check for example: Paraense, H., Marques, B., Amorim, P., Dias, P., & Santos, B. S. (2022). Whac-A-Mole: Exploring Virtual Reality (VR) for Upper-Limb Post-Stroke Physical Rehabilitation based on Participatory Design and Serious Games. IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), IEEE VR, 716–717.
The conclusion mention once again this work is innovative. Once again, after reading all the papers, I fail to see in what way when comparing to existing literature.
An acknowledgment to the participants that helped in the tests would be a nice add-on.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you so much for your suggestions, and the proposals to enrich the whole document. They have been very helpful and we have taken into account all of them.
In the attached file we have answered one per one to your specifications, in the color green. Moreover, we marked the changes in our own manuscript.
We hope the changes and improvements are adjusted to the expectation and we would like to thank you for the effort to re-review the paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- Abstract: A paper should provide methodological and innovative contributions that are not "project".
- Introduction section should also discuss the limitation of VR technologies in similar scenarios. For instance, applications in VR cannot be adopted by people with visual impairments without a voice aid. Moreover, VR technologies require that healthcare personnel be trained to use them, and they require state-of-the-art therapy centers.
- "Background" Section should be renamed as Related Work Section.
- Authors only report a few related works which are often not recent. I would like to suggest some recent related works that exploit virtual reality and AI approaches for supporting people with disability during their daily life:
https://doi.org/10.1145/3284869.3284908, https://doi.org/10.1145/3512919, https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.1768308
- Section 2: "The first phase of the project consisted of a literature review" authors never discuss them in this section.
- The paper clearly shows the main steps for designing and developing a tool. If we consider the methodological contribution, this is very poor.
- Section 3 "Results": The section does not show only experimental results, but also technological details and scenarios. The title does not match the content.
- A video demo of the proposal would be interesting.
- The long lists of Hardware and Software resources should represent the setting details of the experimental evaluation.
- Are all the Hardware and Software specifications actually required for the proposals?
- Details about the architecture of the tools are missing. The authors describe only scenarios and their consequent implementation.
- I suggest completely revising the document to make it a research paper and not a technical report.
- It is not clear how the users involved in the evaluation have been trained for using the tool.
- Have questionnaires been made for this sort of usability test? If so, what kind of questionnaires were done?
General comment: Given that the proposal is interesting and I am in favor of this type of paper, which finds concrete confirmation in practical reality. However, I'm not sure about the proposal. The proposed tool is interesting, but the authors do not contextualize the problems and the structure of the tool well. It is not clear whether the tool uses artificial intelligence models or methodological proposals in the literature. As it is discussed, it appears that it is a simple requirement implementation. Furthermore, it is clear that everything they reported in the paper is closely related to the development of technology. However, this should be a paper, not a technical report. I suggest completely reviewing the contents and restructuring the proposal by bringing out the methodological contents and the research problems behind this system.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you so much for your suggestions, and the proposals to enrich the whole document. They have been very helpful and we have taken into account all of them.
In the attached file we have answered one per one to your specifications, in the color green. Moreover, we marked the changes in our own manuscript.
We hope the changes and improvements are adjusted to the expectation and we would like to thank you for the effort to re-review the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
First of all, I appreciate all the work the authors have done to ensure the suggestions were addressed.
I only have one comment in regards to:
"HTC VIVE device has been selected to generate the VR experience. However, the Oculus Quest 2 device was also of interest. This device stands out for its lower cost and for being autonomous, not requiring a computer or sensors to configure the VR space. However, the Oculus Quest 2 equipment does not allow the connection of the Leap Motion device, something essential in our work."
When using the Quest, the leap motion is not needed, the device already recognize hand gestures on its own, which means it becomes even more accessible, and cheaper. Perhaps, try to address this manner (comparison) in a more abstract way.
For example:
"In this paper, we have demonstrated the benefits of using HMD for ...... . Despite these advantages, nowadays, newer devices are starting to emerge, like the Oculus Quest, which allow ....... . This means, future research may move into exploring these cheaper, more accessible devices, that patients can even have at home and so on..... " You can even suggest a future comparison between HTC VIVE and Oculus Quest could be made.
In this vein, I suggest adding some preliminary works that are exploring the Oculus quest, like:
Paraense, H., Marques, B., Amorim, P., Dias, P., & Santos, B. S. (2022). Whac-A-Mole: Exploring Virtual Reality (VR) for Upper-Limb Post-Stroke Physical Rehabilitation based on Participatory Design and Serious Games. IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), IEEE VR, 716–717.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you so much for your feedback. We really appreciate your words and suggestions.
We send our comments to your review in the attachment, also the changes have been marked through the document of the manuscript
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Previous Comment:
- "Background" Section should be renamed as Related Work Section.
> Changed the name of the section.
New Comment:
- Related work should be a Section and not a Subsection
Previous Comment:
- Authors only report a few related works which are often not recent. I would like to suggest some recent related works that exploit virtual reality and AI approaches for supporting people with disability during their daily life: https://doi.org/10.1145/3284869.3284908, https://doi.org/10.1145/3512919, https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.1768308
> We appreciate the references provided. The last article has been of special interest and has been added to the Introduction to justify, paying special attention to the design of assistance applications for people with disabilities.
New Comment:
- Related work section continues to contain only a few works. Authors should further enrich this section in order to focus their paper with respect to the existing ones: https://doi.org/10.1145/3284869.3284908, https://doi.org/10.1145/3512919, https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.1768308
Previous Comment:
- A video demo of the proposal would be interesting.
> We provide you with a video of tests with a user. However, we do not contemplate its inclusion in the article. https://youtu.be/vr1x1sLRC5Q?t=217
New Comment:
- I suggest adding the link to the paper
Previous Comment:
- The long lists of Hardware and Software resources should represent the setting details of the experimental evaluation.
- Are all the Hardware and Software specifications actually required for the proposals?
> The list of hardware and software is reduced. Only the most important elements are kept.
New Comment:
- Although authors consider such a list "important", it is not necessary to dedicate them to two entire sections. As I've suggested in the previous comment, these could be shown as setting details of the experimental evaluation.
Previous Comment:
- Have questionnaires been made for this sort of usability test? If so, what kind of questionnaires was done?
> No questionnaires have been carried out. The assessment has been carried out by health professionals through discussion groups and the data records of the application.
New Comment:
- It is not clear why the authors do not submit at least a survey to the user involved in the evaluation.
Previous General Comment:
- General comment: Given that in favor of this type of paper, which finds concrete confirmation in practical reality. However, I'm not sure about the proposal. The proposed tool is interesting, but the authors do not contextualize the problems and the structure of the tool well. It is not clear whether the tool uses artificial intelligence models or methodological proposals in the literature. As it is discussed, it appears that it is a simple requirement implementation. Furthermore, everything they reported in the paper is closely related to the development of technology. However, this should be a paper, not a technical report. I suggest completely reviewing the contents and restructuring the proposal by bringing out the methodological contents and the research problems behind this system.
New Comment:
- I continue to be perplexed about the content of the paper. As I suggested in the previous remark, the proposal is closely related to the development of technology/product. However, this should be a paper, not a technical report. I suggest completely reviewing the contents and restructuring the proposal by bringing out the methodological contents and the research problems behind this system.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you so much for your feedback.
We attach the document with the answers from the authors in colour green.
Thank you for your attention
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Although the research contribution is limited, and should be further stressed, the paper is marginally acceptable.
Author Response
Thank you so much for considering the potential interest of our work. We send you the answer in the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
