Next Article in Journal
Development of a Paper-Based Analytical Method for the Colorimetric Determination of Calcium in Saliva Samples
Previous Article in Journal
Acoustic Noise-Based Detection of Ferroresonance Events in Isolated Neutral Power Systems with Inductive Voltage Transformers
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

An Underwater Human–Robot Interaction Using a Visual–Textual Model for Autonomous Underwater Vehicles

Sensors 2023, 23(1), 197; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23010197
by Yongji Zhang 1, Yu Jiang 1,2,*, Hong Qi 1,2, Minghao Zhao 1, Yuehang Wang 1, Kai Wang 1 and Fenglin Wei 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Sensors 2023, 23(1), 197; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23010197
Submission received: 12 November 2022 / Revised: 14 December 2022 / Accepted: 19 December 2022 / Published: 24 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Intelligent Sensors)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I suggest you title the last part of the article as "summary"/"conclusions"

"Author Contributions" should be a separate section/chapter

 The authors focused on communication in one direction: from the diver to the robot. I would expect at least one paragraph of commentary, e.g. in a summary of how the proposed approach can be used in robot-to-diver communication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper proposes an visual-textual model for underwater hand gesture recognition (VT-UHGR). The VT-UHGR model encodes the underwater diver’s image as visual features, the category text as textual features, and generates visual-textual features through multimodal interactions. The following points need to be carefully considered during the revision. 

-The datasets taken for the study are very minimum. The authors are advised to considered all the possible combinations of hand gesture. 

- The results discussion requires all other parameters also not only the accuracy. The loss function results examination need to be presented.

- The validation of the proposed method requires much more analysis with different data sets. Moreover the comparative study is weak. 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed my concerns. Paper can be accepted for publications

Back to TopTop