Development of a Reminiscence Therapy System for the Elderly Using the Integration of Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript describes technical details regarding development of a VR/AR system that could be used for reminiscence therapy in elderly individuals. The main problem of the manuscript is that it does not provide any information about acceptability and effectiveness of this intervention. Therefore, it is completely inappropriate to state in the Abstract that this intervention would prevent or retard dementia (line 27). There is also no base for the statement that AR/AV system is superior to two-dimensional object presentation (line 239).
It is not clear, how this intervention would be applied. To individuals or several people at the same time? The effectiveness of the reminiscence therapy is mostly due to a group discussion and it is difficult to imagine how it would work with VR/AR. Another major problem is that reminiscence therapy is mostly used for people with cognitive impairment, who cannot initiate their activities. It is questionable, if these people would tolerate VR/AR equipment and understand how to operate it.
Although the technical description is very detailed, the figures do not help in understanding the interventions. In some of them, e.g. Fig 3, the letters are too small to read, and some other figures are incomprehensible.
Minor points:
1. Reminiscence is supposed to evoke pleasant events, not “experiences of 245 painful life events and unfair treatment” lines 245-246
2. Duplicate lines in Introduction, lines 64-65 and line 71
3. There is a need for careful editing of English language, e.g., line 19 – stimulation instead of stimulating, line 113 – elders instead of elderlies
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: This manuscript describes technical details regarding development of a VR/AR system that could be used for reminiscence therapy in elderly individuals. The main problem of the manuscript is that it does not provide any information about acceptability and effectiveness of this intervention. Therefore, it is completely inappropriate to state in the Abstract that this intervention would prevent or retard dementia (line 27).
Point 2: There is also no base for the statement that AR/AV system is superior to two-dimensional object presentation (line 239).
Point 3: It is not clear, how this intervention would be applied. To individuals or several people at the same time? The effectiveness of the reminiscence therapy is mostly due to a group discussion and it is difficult to imagine how it would work with VR/AR.
Point 4: Another major problem is that reminiscence therapy is mostly used for people with cognitive impairment, who cannot initiate their activities. It is questionable, if these people would tolerate VR/AR equipment and understand how to operate it.
Point 5: Although the technical description is very detailed, the figures do not help in understanding the interventions. In some of them, e.g. Fig 3, the letters are too small to read, and some other figures are incomprehensible.
Point 6: Minor points:
Reminiscence is supposed to evoke pleasant events, not “experiences of 245 painful life events and unfair treatment” lines 245-246 Duplicate lines in Introduction, lines 64-65 and line 71 There is a need for careful editing of English language, e.g., line 19 – stimulation instead of stimulating, line 113 – elders instead of elderlies.
Response: Revision is marked Red in the manuscript.
Point 1: Thanks for the comment. In Abstract, the statement about “prevent the Alzheimer's disease or retard memory degeneration” has been modified to be “fully be activated as a therapy for elderly people”. (p. 1)
Point 2: Thanks for the comment. The statement that “AR/AV system is superior to two-dimensional object presentation” has been modified as “AR/AV system can promote the immersion experience”. (p. 7)
Point 3: Thanks for the comment. In the last paragraph of Experimental verification instructions section, the statement “The proposed system in this study is surely portable for individual elder person” is added to describe how this intervention would be applied. Also, “the effectiveness of reminiscence therapy using the AR/VR system can then be evaluated using group discussion with the elder user, his/her family and caretaker” is addressed to explain how effectiveness of reminiscence therapy would work with VR/AR. (p. 7)
Point 4: Thanks for the comment. In Abstract as well as Introduction, the statement “this study proposes an integrated VR/AR Reminiscence Therapy system for the healthy and sub-healthy elder people” is added to express the application of this study. (p. 1, 2)
Point 5: Thanks for the comment. Figure 2 has been redrawn to show the interventions of VR. (p. 3) The letters in Figures 1-3 have been redrawn clearly. (p. 3, 4)
Point 6: Thanks for the comment.
In Conclusion, “recall experiences of painful life events and unfair treatment” is changed to be “evoke pleasant events”. (p. 7) Duplicate lines in Introduction have been solved. (p. 2) English language has been overall checked throughout the paper including “stimulation” and “elders”.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Wording such as "use of reminiscence therapy will help slow or stop the onset of Alzheimer's disease" are simply inaccurate. These types of statements should be removed from the paper. There are obvious benefits of reminiscence therapy, reduced agitation, increased social interaction, etc. so the therapy is definitely worthwhile as a therapy not a treatment for dementia.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Wording such as "use of reminiscence therapy will help slow or stop the onset of Alzheimer's disease" are simply inaccurate. These types of statements should be removed from the paper.
Point 2: There are obvious benefits of reminiscence therapy, reduced agitation, increased social interaction, etc. so the therapy is definitely worthwhile as a therapy not a treatment for dementia.
Response: Revision is marked Blue in the manuscript.
Point 1: Absolutely follow the comment, the "use of reminiscence therapy will help slow or stop the onset of Alzheimer's disease" related statement has been removed throughout the paper.
Point 2: Thanks for the comment. In Research Method and Conclusion sections, “the therapy is definitely worthwhile as a therapy for dementia” is addressed. (p. 3, 8)
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors did not improve the manuscript very much. The figures are still too small, especially Fig. 3 and 4 and should be presented as a full page. It is confusing who would benefit from this intervention. Reminisce therapy was validated in people with dementia and not as a method to prevent dementia. It just provides pleasant experience and activity. It is not clear, what the authors mean by sub-healthy individuals (line 19 and 73).
The English language was not improved very much, e.g. garbled sentence on lines 29-30. The statement on lines 243-244 is not clear. Do the authors mean that their system is more portable than text and photos? That is clearly not correct.
Author Response
Reply to commenter 1 comment
Point 1: The author did not improve the manuscript very much. These numbers are still too small, especially Figure 3 and Figure 4, which should be displayed as a full page.
Point 2: People who benefit from this intervention will be confused.
Point 3: Memories are proven in patients with dementia, not as a way to prevent dementia. It just provides a pleasant experience and activities. The author's significance to sub-health individuals is not known (lines 19 and 73).
Point 4: There is not much improvement in the English language, such as the sentence on lines 29-30. The statement on lines 243-244 is not clear. Does the author mean that their system is more portable than text and photos? This is obviously not correct..
Reply: The revision in the manuscript is marked in red.
Point 1: Thank you for your comment. All numbers are redrawn and enlarged for readability.
Point 2: Thank you for your comment. In the abstract and presentation, the statement “...not only provides memories of entertainment, but also provides possible prevention of dementia for healthy and sub-health elderly.” It is explained who will benefit from this intervention. (Pages 1, 2)
Point 3: Thank you for your comment. In the research methods and conclusions, "treatment is definitely worth treating as a treatment for dementia". (pages 3, 9)
In the summary and introduction to duction, the statement "Defining the concept of treatment work between the intermediate stages of health and disease" was added as a definition of sub-healthy people. (Pages 1, 2)
Point 4: Thank you for your comment. The word "portable" has been modified to be "pleasant". (Page 8) The manuscript has been sent by MDPI to a large number of English editors.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the revision. It is much improved. However, it would be good to eliminate exactly the same sentences in the abstract and introduction (they were newly added)
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Thank you for the revision. It is much improved. However, it would be good to eliminate exactly the same sentences in the abstract and introduction (they were newly added).
Response: Revision is marked Red in the manuscript.
Point 1: Absolutely follow the comment. The same sentences in Introduction has been rewritten to be different from that in the Abstract. (p. 2)
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
