Emerging Sensory Methodologies to Support Strawberry Breeding and Future Prospects Combined with Augmented Reality
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript with the title “Emerging sensory methodologies to support strawberry breeding and brief future prospective combined with augmented reality” reviews methodologies that can be used to evaluate sensory berry traits to support strawberry breeding. The topic is of interest to the community, especially since the strategies for the evaluation of sensory traits can vary largely between breeders and uniformity between sensory trait phenotyping is lacking. The author distinguishes between methods that evaluate specific attributes and holistic methodologies, which are summarized, examples are presented with different ways of and visualization.
Before publication however, text content, phrasing, language and figures need to be improved. Figures should be reduced in numbers and become more precise in the contents that the figures can transport.
Specific comments:
- Title: why would these methods be specific to strawberries and not apply to other berries or fruit? Can the title be shortened, especially the second half appears too long and concerns about 30 lines of text in the manuscript. “Prospective” should be replaced with “prospects”.
- Line 12 ff: “sensory and consumer methodologies” need rephrasing. The message of this phrase is not clear- methodologies capturing sensory traits that are tailored to consumers needs, or involve consumers to capture their opinions?
- Line 13: consumer-based sensory technology – which technology? Does the author mean methology?
- Lines 22 ff: The numbers the author shows for strawberry production of 2021 differ from the FAO stat number of strawberry production of 2021. Can the author please check?
- Line 23: America needs an s > Americas
- Line 47: that the tradition of sensory evaluation in breeding programs is not proper seems too strong of a statement, especially without any reference to support it.
- Line 55: What does the author want to say with “recent past” here? How to contrast to “recent decades” in line 64. Is this the same time frame”
- Line 57 ff: sentence need to be rephrased and shortened to make the intention of this review more clear, why new strategies of assessment are needed.
- Line 92: The whether should be replaced by “if”.
- Line 95 ff: language needs to be improved in order to transport meaning
- Line 98: CATA has been introduced as abbreviation before and can be used.
- Line 101: .Then, they…..
- Line 105: Figure 3a is cited here after Fiugre 1b . Either replace order of figures, or add something like “(see below)”.
- Line 110 ff: rephrase (e.g. “Using the same approach as CATA, it is possible to assess ideal product features and overall liking by performing Penalty Analysis.”)
- Line 113: spelling our what “the two CATA assessment methods are will improve the text.
- Line 125 : Instead of what?
- Line 135: For visualization ….
- Line 158 ff: Change sentence structure
- Line 150 ff: The argument of having different axis scales for being a misleading visualization is inappropriate as axis scales can always be adjusted.
- Line 159: what is “traditional” CA - is CA non-traditional?
- Line 169: by “the attribute choice process is crucial” the author means the “choice of attributes is crucial”
- Line 171: please clarify what is meant be the “cognitive process”
- Line 174: RATA is rather adding a rating step rather than a discriminating step. Or what do authors want to express with “discriminating”?
- Line 180: replace “may” by “can”; same as in line 208
- Line 190: what do authors mean by conventional profile. Space needs to be added before reference (several cases below as well).
- Line 220: Free profiling (FP) should be Flash Profiling? Abbreviation is introduced before and can be used.
- Line 243: a test person is not a judge (also below)
- Line251: Blancher et al. [41] ….
- Line 284: “Evolution” should not be used in this context. Replace with e.g. “advancement “ or else.
- Line 289: please rephrase
- Line 292: why not use “test person” rather than assessor?
- Line 296: Napping is a name therefore needs to be in capital, same as line 305, 312
- Line 297: what do authors mean by “latent” ?– variables can only be inferred indirectly
- Line 326: …methodologies do ….
- Line 370 ff: …various cited methods … should be mentioned by name here.
Tables:
- Table 1: What is meant by the second column “Strawberry”? Add full stop at the end of the table header.
- Table 2: from the table as presented it appears as each consumer gets a different set of attributes to evaluate, which I assume is not correct.
- Table 3: The grouping of lines by different consumers into groups 1 to 3 does this make sense
Figures:
Generally: increase font size. Put two panels next to each other (in same row). Figures can be combined or removed as stated below. Keeping of very similar panels need to be justified.
- Figure 1: font size is much too small and needs to be remade. The difference between panel a and b is only very little and does not justify a second panel.
- Figure 2: increase font size. Thresholds are usually presented as horizontal or vertical lines, not by a box.
- Figure 3 is wrongly labelled as a second Figure 1. This correspondence analysis is and analysis of CATA results rather than a description of CATA results. Also here, the difference between panels a and b is very little – the green ideal line added in panel a - and does not justify an additional panel. Panel b can be removed and the content can be phrased in words.
- Figure 4: Figure 4 can be combined with figure 3a to form one figure.
- Figure 5: “Example of PCA visuatization” is very imprecise. The legend should also contain that the figure includes a correlation circle and what the vectors are representing (correlation of variables with PC).
- Figure 6: increase font size. Combine Figure 5 and 6
- Figure 7: put panels in one row, remove panel b and describe by words. Panel a needs to increase in brightness and informative part of the picture should be cropped. Add numbers digitally to improve visibility.
- Figure 9 and 10 are practically identical. Figure 9 can be removed.
- Figure 11 can be put together with figure 10 as panels a and b.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMore attention can be put to rephrasing of sentences in order to transport the meaning of what the author wanted to express. Words are sometimes used in ways that are slightly off - e.g. future prospective instead of future prospects
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe application of sensory and consumer methodologies, along with Augmented Reality technology, in strawberry breeding programs, offers valuable tools to breeders for producing more flavourful fruits that better meet consumer preferences. However, the review need to me modified as per the following suggestions;
Line 33; The introduction assumes that the shift in consumer preferences towards flavour and nutrition is universal without considering regional differences. The claims about consumer preferences and breeding priorities are broad and lack specific supporting references.
Line 46-63; How do the results from trained assessors compare to those from untrained consumer panels in terms of reliability and consistency?
Line 50-51; The statement about subjective information and personal preferences is not backed up by specific studies or data.
Line 55-63; There is a mention of descriptive analysis and rapid sensory methods without detailing the drawbacks or challenges of these approaches comprehensively.
Line 59; Some points are repeated, such as the perishable nature of strawberries and the need for standardized methodology, which could be presented more concisely.
Line 110; The explanation of the Penalty Analysis (PA) and the corresponding methodologies is convoluted and lacks clear definitions or step-by-step guidance. The transition between discussing PA, CATA, and Correspondence Analysis (CA) is abrupt and not well-connected, leading to confusion. The description of Moon Plot (MP) is overly complicated and not well-explained, making it difficult to understand its advantages over traditional CA plots.
Are there specific studies or real-world examples that demonstrate the effectiveness and accuracy of using PA, CATA, and CA in strawberry breeding programs?
Line 153; How do you handle the potential misinterpretation of CA and MP plots, especially for those not familiar with these visualizations? Are there additional training or resources provided to ensure accurate data interpretation?
Line 226 onwards; The transition between explaining different methodologies (Free Sorting, Napping, UFP) is abrupt and lacks a coherent flow, leading to confusion. The explanation of how to apply these methodologies in practical scenarios is vague, leaving readers uncertain about implementation details.
How do you ensure that the verbalization task in Free Sorting provides meaningful and accurate data, especially when working with untrained assessors? How do you ensure that the verbalization task in Free Sorting provides meaningful and accurate data, especially when working with untrained assessors?
Line 332; What ethical considerations are involved in collecting and using biometric data for sensory analysis, and how do you ensure the privacy and consent of participants? It would be better if author can add information on the current technological and methodological limitations of using AR and biometrics in sensory analysis, and how do you propose to address these challenges?
What specific areas of future research do you propose to further explore the integration of AR and biometrics in sensory analysis? How will these research efforts address the existing gaps and limitations identified in this section?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has incorporated all the suggestions. MS can be considered for publication.
