Review on Haptic Assistive Driving Systems Based on Drivers’ Steering-Wheel Operating Behaviour

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents an interesting perspective on the Haptic Assistive Driving Systems. The introduction section is well presented and discussed. Section 2.1. Haptic warning systems, require more discussion, particularly highlighting the advantages of Haptic systems. This could be in comparison to other similar systems. Table 1, requires more deliberation too. Section 4 Driver-Vehicle Systems Control is comprehensive and clear. Section 6 Discussion, needs to be improved. Be clearer about the aims of the project as stated in the Introduction; highlight the extent to which the aims have been achieved. Further, emphasize the shortcoming of this research. Finally, although the reference list is high, consider removing some of the older literature, particularly where similar works are also included.  

Author Response

RE: RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 1 COMMENTS

 

The authors sincerely appreciate the reviewer's invaluable comments regarding this review paper. This document shows how and where the comments have been addressed in the revised paper.

 

Point 1: Section 2.1. Haptic warning systems require more discussion, particularly highlighting the advantages of Haptic systems.

 

Response 1: More discussions on the haptic warning system have been added to section 2.1

 

Point 2: Table 1 requires more deliberation

 

Response 2: More reviews on the haptic warning system performance were added to table1. The added pieces of information are highlighted in blue colour.

 

Point 3: Section 6 Discussion needs to be improved. Be clearer about the aims of the project as stated in the Introduction; highlight the extent to which the aims have been achieved. Further, emphasize the shortcoming of this research.

 

Response 3: Section 6 was revised, and more precise details were addressed

 

Point 4: Finally, although the reference list is high, consider removing some older literature, particularly where similar works are also included. 

 

Response 4: seven references concerning older literature and similar works were removed ([2], [3], [6], [57], [61], [63], [89]) from this paper

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled “Researches on Drivers’ Steering-Wheel Operating Behavior in Haptic Assistive Driving Systems” has been investigated in detail. The topic addressed in the manuscript is potentially interesting and the manuscript contains some practical meanings, however, there are some issues which should be addressed by the authors:

1)      In the first place, I would encourage the authors to extend the abstract more with the key results. As it is, the abstract is a little thin and does not quite convey the interesting results that follow in the main paper. The "Abstract" section can be made much more impressive by highlighting your contributions. The contribution of the study should be explained simply and clearly.

2)      The readability and presentation of the study should be further improved. The paper suffers from language problems.

3)      The importance of the design carried out in this manuscript can be explained better than other important studies published in this field. I recommend the authors to review other recently developed works.

4)      What makes the proposed method suitable for this unique task? What new development to the proposed method have the authors added (compared to the existing approaches)? These points should be clarified.

5)      “Discussion” section should be edited in a more highlighting, argumentative way. The author should analysis the reason why the tested results is achieved.

6)      The authors should clearly emphasize the contribution of the study. Please note that the up-to-date of references will contribute to the up-to-date of your manuscript. The study named "Metaheuristic optimization-based path planning and tracking of quadcopter for payload hold-release mission" recently published in this journal - can be used to explain the method in the study or to indicate the contribution in the “Introduction” section.

7)      Stability analysis of the system should be done.

8)      The complexity of the proposed model and the model parameter uncertainty are not enough mentioned.

9)      The effect of the parametric uncertainty is not discussed in detail. How did the comparison methods perform with or without the uncertainty?

10)  It will be helpful to the readers if some discussions about insight of the main results are added as Remarks.

This study may be proposed for publication if it is addressed in the specified problems.

Author Response

RE: RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2 COMMENTS

 

The authors sincerely appreciate the reviewer's invaluable comments regarding this review paper. This document shows how and where the comments have been addressed in the revised paper.

 

 

Point 1: In the first place, I would encourage the authors to extend the abstract more with the key results. As it is, the abstract is a little thin and does not quite convey the interesting results that follow in the main paper. The "Abstract" section can be made much more impressive by highlighting your contributions. The contribution of the study should be explained simply and clearly.

 

Response 1: The abstract has been revised, and some more precise information was added. The advantages of haptic feedback on the steering wheel-based driving behaviourr modelling and control were highlighted.

 

Point 2: The readability and presentation of the study should be further improved. The paper suffers from language problems

 

Response 2: The language was further revised, and another round of proofreading was done.

 

Point 3: The importance of the design carried out in this manuscript can be explained better than other important studies published in this field. I recommend the authors to review other recently developed works.

 

Response 3: Thank you for the structive comments. The paper analyses the main approaches proposed in the literature for the Haptic assistive driving using force Feeback and human driving behaviour. Each design from the literature is provided with the design idea behind it. More latest developments in the relevant fields were added, while some obsolete ones were removed.

 

Point 4: What makes the proposed method suitable for this unique task? What new development to the proposed method have the authors added (compared to the existing approaches)? These points should be clarified. 

 

Response 4: This paper focuses on the review of haptic feedback systems for steering wheel based operating systems. No new method was developed, except the recommendation in Section 5 on the prospective directions for developing a robust controller considering differences in driving behaviours in haptic systems. To avoid the misunderstanding, the topic of the paper was improved by adding the "Review" explicitly.

 

 Point 5: Discussion section should be edited in a more highlighting, argumentative way. The author should analysis the reason why the tested results is achieved

 

Response 5: Thank you for the comments. The discussion (Section 6) was improved with the discovers highlighted by providing more precise details. The concerns of the existing methods were also address which led to the future work.

 

 

 

Point 6: The authors should clearly emphasize the contribution of the study. Please note that the up to date of references will contribute to the up to date of your manuscript. The study named "Metaheuristic optimization-based path planning and tracking of quadcopter for payload hold-release mission" recently published in this journal - can be used to explain the method in the study or to indicate the contribution in the "Introduction" section

 

Response 6: Thank you for the comment. This paper is a review paper focusing on the latest developments in haptic-based human-vehicle-road systems. The path planning and object tracking were not centred. No new method was developed. Newest literature replaced some old ones ([2], [3], [6], [57], [61], [63], [89]). The abstract and the discussion in Section 6 have been provided with more precise details regarding the study's contribution.

 

Point 7: Stability analysis of the system should be done.

 

Response 7: Most controller approaches proposed in the literature were investigated based on their performances, including the stability, and their benefits and drawbacks were noted. 

 

Point 8: The complexity of the proposed model and the model parameter uncertainty are not enough mentioned.

 

Response 8: The paper is a review without new methods developed. Only Prospective directions were recommended. The model parameter uncertainties will be considered when a new method will be developed, which is not included in this review paper.

 

Point 9: The effect of the parametric uncertainty is not discussed in detail. How did the comparison methods perform with or without the uncertainty?

 

Response 9: Thank you for the comment. Please refer to the response to concern 8. As this is a review paper and no new method was developed, therefore has no parameters to study on. Obvious, it is necessary when we develop prospective ideas.

 

Point 10:  It will be helpful to the readers if some discussions about the insight of the main results are added as Remarks.

 

Response 10: The review paper provided a comprehensive comparison and discussion of the existing methods with some insight highlighted in various sections, including the abstract, introduction, and discussion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All my comments have been thoroughly addressed. It is acceptable in the present form.