Can Consumers Still Form Proximal Sensory Perception in Virtual Anchor Live Streaming? The Impact of the Fit Between Sensory Language Description and Product Attributes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study explores an emerging research area by examining how non-human, AI-based anchors convey sensory experiences to consumers. It fills a notable gap in existing sensory marketing literature, which has largely focused on human interactions. By extending sensory marketing concepts into the realm of virtual commerce, the research highlights how digital environments can evoke sensory engagement. Furthermore, it meaningfully integrates cognitive–emotional theory to explain how sensory language influences consumer perception and purchase intention. The logic of the theoretical model is clear and proven. The authors draw on a wide range of literature, spanning from research on sensory language to studies on virtual influencer marketing, demonstrating a strong understanding of recent developments in the field (2020–2024). Their analysis of the distinction between proximal and distal senses reflects a high level of conceptual depth and theoretical insight. 

There are some important points for criticism as well: sampling bias. All participants were Chinese users recruited via an online platform (Credamo), limiting generalizability beyond cultural and linguistic context. Stimulus limitation. only one product type (chocolate) was tested; results may not generalize to non-edible or tactile goods. Self-reported data. Reliance on Likert scales for sensory perception and authenticity may introduce subjective bias. Effect sizes (η²) are relatively small, suggesting limited practical significance despite statistical robustness.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

Clearly, this is a worthwhile research topic. However, the author should make a stronger case about the worthiness of this study. 

On page 2, line 45 to 52, the author discussed the important role of the anchor. However, there was no reference to support this notion.

On page 2, line 86 to 94, the author discussed the difficulties of product demonstration in the live stream, there was no reference to support this notion.

On page 3, line 99, the author used “Proximal Sensory Description Fit” on line 101- the author used “Proximal Sensory Fit.” Are those two the same or not?

On page 3, line 105-118, the author discussed the results of the two experiments. Why did the author discuss the results in the introduction section?

On page 3, line 120-138, the author presented the contribution of this manuscript. The author elaborated the results but failed to indicate the new knowledge this manuscript brought to theoretical concepts. The author also failed to indicate how the results of this manuscript enhance the current practice.

Conceptual Framework

The current format is not reader friendly. The author should re-structure this section with the same vocabulary that appears in the proposed model. For example, with a heading of proximal sensory description fit, then follows with a paragraph including definition of proximal sensory description fit, examples of proximal sensory description fit in the specific research setting, the relationship between  proximal sensory description fit and purchase intention and the relationship between  proximal sensory description fit and perceived authenticity.

On page 4, line 159-162, the author discussed the differences between Proximal sensory experiences and Distal sensory experiences.

Line 168-169, the author stated, “These sensory experiences can directly influence a consumer's affective response and purchase decision.” The author failed to provide reference to support this notion. In addition, did the author mean only proximal sensory experience influences consumer’s purchase decision or both proximal sensory and distal sensory experience influences consumer purchase decisions?

On page 4, line 180-182, the author stated, “sensory language functions as a direct contact tool between virtual anchors and consumers, thereby effectively compensating for the shortcomings of virtual anchors in conveying proximal sensory experiences.” This is a very important linkage of this research topic, but the author failed to provide reference to support this notion.

On page 4, line 183-185. The author stated, “Proximal Sensory Description, virtual anchors have the capacity to stimulate consumers' tactile, olfactory, and gustatory perceptions in the absence of physical contact, thereby evoking their proximal sensory experiences.” The author failed to provide the reference. Most importantly, this is a conflicting statement.  since the definition of proximal sensory experiences are the experiences that can only be perceived by individuals in close proximity -line 159-161. Therefore, any information communicated by a virtual anchor should be dismal sensory description even if they can stimulate consumers’ five senses, they are still dismal sensory experience since the consumers are not physically in the close proximity of the product.

On page 4, line 189-190, the heading is “ the fit of sensory description” but in the description on page 5, line 191, the author used “sensory description consistency"

On page 5, line 225-240, the explanation for hypothesis 1,  but the author did not provide any reference to support this hypothesis.

On page 5, line 221-224, it is not clear about the “fit” in this manuscript. For instance, it reads like in Park et al. (2013, 2015 ), Parboteeah et al. (2009), and Shang et al. (2023) the fit refers to the appropriateness instead of congruency. The author should provide references to support the importance of the congruency regarding consumer purchase.

On page 5, line 222-223, the author stated, “These studies highlight the significance of sensory fit, particularly the manner in which the visual background of a product influences consumers' emotions and purchase intention.” This statement did not support H 1, where the higher the congruency of Proximal Sensory Description of a product, the higher the purchase intention.

On page 6, line 252-257, the explanation for hypothesis 2 but the author did not provide any reference to support this hypothesis.

O page 7, line 294-323, the author failed to support H3. No discussion about the moderation role of product demonstration between sensory fit and purchase intention.

O page 8, Figure 1, the proposed model. The three hypotheses did not completely reflect the relationships in the proposed model. 

3.1.1. Maneuvering Inspection

On page 8, line 364-367, the author repeats the same sentence -- Secondly, chocolate is a well-known product with a balanced gender distribution and a wide variety of brands.

On page 8, line 370, The author mentioned 150 participants from the Credamo, but the author failed to discuss how s/he recruits the participants? How to protect confidentiality? Any compensation for the participants? Any screening questions…etc.? 

3.1.2. Participants and Procedure

On page 9, line 428, missing appendix. Would the author explain why the product from a gustatory sensory perspective to be considered the higher-fit and from a tactile sensory perspective to be considered as the lower-fit ?

On page 10, line 486, the author failed to provide the reference for the three questions measuring attractiveness.

 

3.1.3. Results and Discussion

On page 11, line 477-479, the author used ANOVA. Since there are two groups, low or high, why did the author use ANOVA instead of t-Test. In addition, did the author combined the three purchase intention questions as one dependent variable?

On page 11, line 505, the experiment reads like a product display instead of product demonstration.

4. General Discussion 4.1. Theoretical Contributions

On page 13, line 594. The author discussed the theoretical contributions. However, it is difficult to thoroughly assess the contribution from the result of this manuscript due to the following three reasons:

• The author failed to provide references to support the proposed relationship in the three hypotheses.
• The current format in the conceptual framework section is not reader friendly. A clear definition was not provided for every construct. A clear description of the relationships between constructs were not provided.
• The author did not clearly indicate the gap between the existing literature and this manuscript. Therefore, the author failed to reveal the new knowledge this manuscript brought to the field by merely elaborating the results of this manuscript,

Overall writing

1. The author mentioned virtual anchor, virtual influencer, and virtual idol on page and explained the differences between virtual anchor and virtual influencer. How about a virtual idol? Is a virtual idol same as a virtual anchor? Do they both refer to a computer-generated character?
2. The author might consider presenting the broad phenomenon first, then using the example in China later. For instance, on page 1, line 31-38, the author can describe the virtual influencers and virtual idols phenomenon first, then providing Lil Miquela as an virtual influencer and Luo Tianyi as a virtual idol.
3. The author might emphasize “fit” means congruency and alignment in this manuscript. The description in the experiment 2 reads like product display instead of product demonstration. Usually, a product demonstration shows customers how to use the product. Merely showing the chocolate might be product display instead of product demonstration.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your submission to the Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research is much appreciated. The publication tackles a noteworthy and relevant problem, and I appreciate the effort you have put into developing this research. The study's benefits and drawbacks for publication in this journal are stated below:

Clarity of presentation and quality of English language

• Although the text is generally well-written, it would benefit from more language polishing to increase its flow and clarity.
• Some sentences are lengthy and intricate; the arguments will be easier to understand if the structure is made simpler and superfluous language is eliminated.
• Make sure that important terms like "perceived authenticity," "product demonstration," and "proximal sensory description fit" are used consistently throughout the content.

Introduction and Literature Review

• Although the introduction offers a solid framework and sufficient citations, to further emphasize the study's uniqueness, think about emphasizing the research gap in the concluding paragraph.
• You would want to more clearly identify how this work builds on earlier studies on sensory marketing, particularly in the context of AI-based virtual anchors.

Methods and Experimental Design

• The hypotheses are addressed in detail by the two experimental investigations, which are well-designed.
• To improve readability, several procedural elements (such as platform demographics, participant recruitment filters, and randomization method) might be condensed.
• Examine whether the stimuli links in the supplemental file were pretested for validity and how they connect to the main experiment.

Results and Analysis

• The results are presented in a methodical manner with pertinent statistical information.
• Consistently including effect sizes and confidence intervals in the main body of the study, rather than just the appendices, would improve its quality.
• Readers' comprehension can be enhanced by a brief graphic summary table of the hypothesis and results.

Discussion and Implications

• Strong theoretical contributions are made, especially when the cognitive-emotional framework is applied.
• Think about providing more details about the practical interactions between proximal and distal sensory experiences for marketers who use artificial intelligence (AI) or virtual influencers.
• Although the management implications are valuable, they may be more easily applied if they were arranged into more manageable subpoints or useful suggestions.

Figures and Tables

• Although rather simple, the figures are instructive. Improve their readability by using uniform styling, better labeling, and better formatting.
• Make sure that every supplemental material is formatted in accordance with JTAER requirements and appropriately cited in the main text.

References

• The references are up to date and pertinent.  Make sure that all in-text citations match the reference list accurately and that the layout of citations follows the JTAER reference style.

Overall Evaluation: This work adds significantly and creatively to the body of knowledge regarding virtual anchor marketing and sensory fit. It has a good chance of being accepted with only slight adjustments to the clarity of the language, the way the figures are presented, and the methodological detail's conciseness.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although the work is comprehensible and the English language quality is generally good, it might benefit from light editing to improve clarity, grammar, and sentence flow.  A few technical phrases may be stated more succinctly, and other sentences are too long or repeated.  Though small language polishing would improve readability and professional presentation, the paper's meaning is obvious overall.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript explores an innovative and timely topic in e-commerce and digital marketing — how virtual anchors can convey proximal sensory experiences (touch, smell, taste) through sensory language in live streaming commerce. By examining the fit between sensory description and product attributes and testing the mediating effects of perceived authenticity and attractiveness as well as the moderating role of product demonstration, this paper contributes to the growing literature on sensory marketing and AI-driven influencer communication. The topic is relevant to both academics and practitioners, especially given the rise of AI-generated avatars and virtual influencers in the digital retail environment.
At the same time, several key issues should be addressed before this paper can be considered for publication.

1. Novelty and Theoretical Contribution
The manuscript contributes by extending sensory marketing and cognitive-emotional theory into the virtual live-streaming context, emphasizing proximal sensory description fit. This focus is novel and significant.
However, the theoretical positioning could be sharpened. Currently, the discussion blends general sensory marketing concepts with digital influencer literature, without clearly distinguishing what new theoretical mechanism this study contributes to.
Please clarify:
How does Proximal Sensory Description Fit advance the understanding of sensory congruence beyond traditional (offline or human influencer) contexts?
Is this study introducing a new construct (e.g., 'virtual sensory fit') or extending existing sensory fit theory?
How does this work contribute to the emerging field of AI-mediated consumer perception or human–AI interaction?
Strengthening these theoretical linkages will elevate the paper from an empirical exploration to a theoretical advancement.

2. Methodology
The two-experiment design (N=262 and N=259) is sound, with rigorous manipulation and control of variables such as background, language script, and virtual anchor appearance. The use of chocolate as a test product is appropriate given its multi-sensory attributes.
However:
The operationalization of 'proximal sensory fit' needs clearer justification. The manipulation (taste vs. touch description) should be theoretically validated, not only pretested. Please explain why these two represent 'high' vs. 'low' fit beyond descriptive reasoning.
The measurement instruments for authenticity and attractiveness are appropriate, but please clarify whether common method bias and randomization order effects were tested.
Statistical reporting could be improved — please provide effect sizes, reliability indices, and confidence intervals for mediation and moderation analyses in the results section for transparency.

3. Results and Discussion
The results are statistically convincing and align with theoretical expectations. The findings that higher sensory fit increases purchase intention via perceived authenticity and attractiveness, and that product demonstration strengthens this effect, are meaningful.
However, the discussion section remains somewhat mechanical and descriptive. To improve:
Compare findings explicitly with existing sensory marketing and influencer studies (e.g., Krishna, 2016; Cascio Rizzo et al., 2023).
Discuss whether these findings imply human-like authenticity cues can be simulated by AI anchors, or whether consumers still differentiate between real and virtual sensory communication.
Address boundary conditions: for example, does the effect differ by product type (hedonic vs. utilitarian) or by cultural context?

4. Theoretical and Practical Implications
The study offers useful insights for virtual influencer marketing, but the implications can be expanded.
The theoretical implications should emphasize how the cognitive-emotional chain (fit → authenticity → attractiveness → intention) provides a novel framework for understanding virtual sensory marketing.
The practical implications should move beyond general advice ('use sensory language and product demonstration') toward actionable recommendations, such as:
How to algorithmically optimize AI-generated sensory descriptions.
How to match sensory cues with different product categories.
How brands can integrate human and virtual anchors for hybrid authenticity strategies.

5. Writing, Structure, and Presentation
The manuscript is well-organized and written in clear academic English. The introduction and literature review are comprehensive, but can be more concise. The 'Conceptual Framework' section (pp. 4–7) is overly descriptive and could be condensed into a tighter theoretical argument.
The conclusion is clear, though it would benefit from emphasizing what this study adds to theory rather than reiterating empirical results. Figures and tables are appropriately used, but please ensure consistent formatting and labeling (e.g., Figure 1 caption should specify variable relationships).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is written in clear and fluent English, and overall readability is good. Academic tone and terminology are appropriate for the journal, and there are no major grammatical errors. However, several sentences are overly long and complex, which may reduce clarity and reader engagement. The authors are advised to:

• Shorten long sentences and use more concise phrasing to improve flow.

• Review transitions between paragraphs to ensure logical coherence and smoother argument development.

• Check for minor issues with article usage (a/an/the) and occasional word redundancy (e.g., “positively and significantly moderates…” could be simplified).

• Ensure consistent terminology (e.g., use either proximal sensory description fit or sensory fit consistently).

In summary, the English quality is good and publication-ready after minor editing for conciseness and stylistic refinement.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript (v2) responds thoroughly and thoughtfully to most reviewer comments.
Key strengths include:

• Stronger methodological rigor and transparency,

• Well-developed theoretical framework,

• Clear and practical managerial implications.

Remaining issues:

• Theoretical distinctiveness between proximal sensory fit and existing sensory congruence theories could be articulated more precisely.

• Writing still requires stylistic tightening and explicit mention of CMB testing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf