Analysis of Direction-Finding Performance of Vector Hydrophones Based on Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Platforms and Application Research of Embodied Cognition Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the authors present an analytical and simulation-based study on mitigating the direction-finding errors of vector hydrophones mounted on UUV platforms. A novel Embodied Transfer Function (ETF) framework derived from embodied cognition theory is introduced to compensate the platform's scattering effects. The work addresses a significant practical problem in underwater acoustics. The proposed method offers an improvement of 30.2% reduction in average error. However, the reviewer still has the following comments:

 

• More details about how “The dynamic interaction between the body and the environment” is encoded in the ETF model should be elaborated to strengthen the contribution.
• The limitations of assuming infinite rigid cylinder must be discussed throughout the paper, although it’s standard for analytical tractability.
• The description of the simulation used for performance comparison (Section 4.3) is slightly unclear. It states the target is at 135°, but Figure 9 and Table 1 show results for a wide range of azimuths.
• Although the ETF method offers a reduction of the average error to 6.2°, the remaining error is still significant at certain azimuths (e.g., 14.9° at 60°). Such discussion/justification is preferred to enhance the clarity in the paper.
• To validate the outperformance of the proposed method, the performance improvement (traditional vs. embodied) across a small range of frequencies (e.g., 500 Hz, 800 Hz, 1200 Hz) can be investigated. This would solidify the claim that the ETF effectively captures frequency-dependent scattering.
• A careful proofread by a native English speaker or professional editing service is recommended.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper embodied transfer function (ETF) correction-based direction-finding error compensation method within the framework of embodied cognition theory, aiming to address the problem of platform scattering interference in direction finding using vector hydrophones mounted on unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) platforms. Although the topic is interesting, this paper needs a major revision. The main concerns are as follows.

 

- The contributions should be more accurate. That is, the differences between the proposed method and other SOTA methods should be emphasized, especially in the contributions.

 

- The authors stated that the proposed method is an application within the embodied cognition framework. To the best of the reviewer's knowledge, embodied-related work is still in its infancy. If it is merely an engineering application, incorporating embodied themes may not be sufficiently rigorous.

 

- Continued to the last comment: If embodied cognition indeed plays a substantive role in the proposed method, it is suggested that the authors further enhance the mathematical descriptions/illustrations to elaborate on its function.

 

- What is the difference between “RE” in Eqs. (26) and (28)? Why is one in roman type and the other in italic type? Please provide a clear definition.

 

- Writing errors exist, please check it carefully. For example,

1. a) line 321, “$N=2$f_s” => “DQN”? Please note italics;
2. b) the figures need to be re-formatted to avoid excessive blank space;
3. c) vector graphics are suggested for making your paper more reader-friendly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is of interest to engineers working in the domain of hydroacoustics. It presents a study of the interference caused by scattering of the signal of interest by the carrier platform of a vector hydrophone. It needs a bit of work to make it publishable, Once the authors address the comments imbedded in the attached annotated version, it should be in a publishable state. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I don't have further comments

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I don't have further comments

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort invested by the reviewer in evaluating our manuscript.

Thank you very much!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After revisions, I think the quality of this manuscript has been improved. However, some problems still exist. For example,

1) Please pay attention to the format, such as Figure 5 and its caption not being on the same page.

2) Vector graphics are suggested for making your paper more reader-friendly, and the text in some figures is hard to read when zoomed in.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf