Interactive Smart Space for Single-Person Households Using Electroencephalogram through Fusion of Digital Twin and Artificial Intelligence
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I think the research is very interesting and the research methods are of very high quality.
Regarding the explanation of the research methodology, I think that the system combining DT and AI, which is the main focus of the research, has been explained in sufficient detail.
On the other hand, I felt that there was a lack of explanation about the configuration and detailed design of "Real Smart Space".
Specifically, I think a detailed explanation of the dimensions (width, depth, ceiling height) and materials used to construct are needed.
If I look at Figure 11, I can see that not only the size of the "Real Space" has changed, but also the size of the opening where you can see the outside view.
I think it would be better to explain the detailed design of "Real Smart Space" and clearly show that the main variable affecting the EEG information is the size of the space.
Author Response
Figure 10 has been added.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper discusses the interaction between the variable physical size of the living space and the feeling of stress and engagement induced in the inhabitants. It combines concepts and methods from different disciplines, such as the use of EEG signals as inputs to simulation tools (Digital Twin) and AI tools (Neural networks), coupled with a physical mockup and a full-scale test space.
In its present state, however, the exceeding length of the paper (20 pages) and the high number of repetitions of some key concepts, make reading of the paper extremely cumbersome. Furthermore, the text is structured as a “detective story” in which the scope and goal of the paper are not clearly stated until the very end of the text when the concise and clear “5. Discussion” section finally reveals “who is the murderer”…
In my opinion, the paper is worth publishing after a substantial revision, reducing the length of the text to 12-15 pages at most and eliminating the useless repetitions.
Author Response
The paper has been revised by deleting duplicate content.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The comments have been adequately addressed in the revised version of the article. The paper can be published in its present version.