Line Field Optical Coherence Tomography

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the paper, the authors review the line field (LF) OCT, including the development timeline and discussion on the pros and cons, compared with other types of OCT, especially scanning point (SP) OCT. The review provides a helpful introduction to the LF-OCT, which is an important supplement of existing reviews on other types of OCT. Overall the paper is well written with clear structure. However, the following concerns should be addressed to improve the manuscript, before considering to be published in Photonics.

 

1. The major concern is that the statements in the paper is qualitative, given no equations or quantitative performance of the LF-OCT when compared with other types of OCT, especially the SP-OCT, which make the conclusions less convincing. Specifically, regarding the resolution, imaging speed, and signal-to-noise ratio, equations and quantitative performance of reported LF-OCT system should be provided, and compared with existing SP-OCT system.

 

2. In most of the figures of optical setup, the light paths are from right to left, which is inconsistent with the convention. It will be better to redraw the figures to make them looks more familiar to the optics community.

 

3. Additional discussion of the LF-OCT applications should be provided. For example, considering the most successful commercial applications of OCT, that is, in ophthalmology and intravascular OCT (is it possible to implement endoscopic LF-OCT?), what’s the pros and cons if LF-OCT is applied, compared with existing SP-OCT technologies.

 

4. In Table 1, it seems some words are hided in the cell of “Lateral resolution method”.

Author Response

Please see attached response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

see attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attached response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

This paper is so interesting.

Just a few suggestions:

1) Line 33: SNR means sound/noise ratio, ratio is missing on the explanation

2)Line 39: What NA means? Is not in text

3) Table 1: it will be very interesting to include some examples of comercial devices of each type of categorization, to help readers and people who uses OCT on daily practice to understand which type of OCT are using.

 

Author Response

Pleasee see attached response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised manuscript addresses all my concerns in the previous review. And I suggest to accept the manuscript in the current format.