All Optical Speckle Contrast-Based Vibration Sensor for Photoacoustic Signal Detection
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript, entitled: “All Optical Speckle Contrast based Vibration Sensor for Photoacoustic Signal Detection,” presented an all optical, non-contact, vibration sensor based on optical speckle contrast, and demonstrated its application for photoacoustic signal detection. It is a very interesting technique, and the presentation is solid. Comparing with previous development from the same research group, the current investigation used a single-pixel detector instead of a camera.
- The abstract and the title do not match. The abstract should be re-written to emphasize more of the photoacoustic application. As written, it does not seem to have too much to do with photoacoustic detection.
- As an improvement in comparison with previous camera-based approach, what is the advantage? Can you compare results from both approaches?
- Only single-point detection was provided. How do you plan to form an image?
- Please quantify the SNR and resolution. Based on signals from Figure 4, the resolution is much worse than that of the PZT transducer.
- It is unsure what is the role of Figure 5. If you want to present the technique as a more general technique and not just for photoacoustic detection, please revise your title and introduction section of the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper, the authors describe a method based on vibration sensing to all-optical speckle contrast. Comparing it to traditional contrast estimation, and showing that the method developed for them uses a spectral estimation of contrast, instead of the traditional statistical one. Moreover, they also demonstrated its applicability for phonocardiography and blood flow-related speckle changes signal.
Although I feel, the authors should review the format and grammar carefully. I recommend the acceptance of this paper after minor revision.
The author should consider these comments before its publication:
- The authors should add more information about Figure 2 in the manuscript and also in the subscription.
- There are some typos and grammatical errors. Please check the manuscript carefully.
For instance:
- page 1, line 10: replace “First, it, relies..” with “ First, it relies..”
- page 1, line 12: replace “ interferometer. the” with interferometer. The”
- page 1, lines 26-28: the letter size is different
- page 1, line 32: i.e. should be in italics
- page 2, line50: a point fault after “[11-13]”
- page 2, line 54: replace “time.more” with “time. More”
- page 3, line 98: a point fault after “ background illumination”
- page 5, lines 175-182: The format of the subscription of Figure 1 is not adequate.
- page 5, line 184: there is a “(“ but not a “)”
- page 5, line 185: replace “(THORBARS). the probe” with “(THORBARS). The probe”
- page 7, line 243: replace “Figure 6. in this…” with “Figure 6. In this..”
-page 9, line 251: replace “5. Conclusion” with “4. Conclusion”
- page 9, line 268: there is a ” at the final of the sentences but not a “ before it.
- There are some mistakes in the format of the bibliography.
For example:
- There are some without the final page (ref: 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15)
- There are some without DOI (ref: 4, 18).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I do not have further comments
