Individual Behavior and Attention Distribution during Wayfinding for Emergency Shelter: An Eye-Tracking Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• The title of the manuscript is clear and concise.
• The abstract is well-written and summarizes the main points of the manuscript.
• The introduction provides a good overview of the literature on the topic.
• The methods section is well-written and describes the methods used in the study in detail.
• The results section is well-written and presents the results of the study in a clear and concise way.
• The discussion section is well-written and discusses the implications of the results in a thoughtful way.

Overall, I think the manuscript is well-written and well-organized. The methods are sound and the results are interesting. However, there are a few areas where the manuscript could be improved.

• The introduction could be improved by providing a more detailed overview of the literature on the topic.
• The discussion section could be improved by discussing the implications of the results in more detail.
• The manuscript could benefit from the inclusion of more figures and tables to help illustrate the results.

Overall, I think the manuscript is a good starting point, but it could be improved with some revisions.

Here are some specific suggestions for improvement:

• In the introduction, the authors could provide a more detailed overview of the literature on the topic. This would help to contextualize the study and make it more clear why the research was conducted.
• In the discussion section, the authors could discuss the implications of the results in more detail. This would help to clarify the contributions of the study and make it more likely to be cited by other researchers.
• The manuscript could benefit from the inclusion of more figures and tables to help illustrate the results. This would make the results easier to understand and would help to make the manuscript more visually appealing.

• In the introduction, the authors could discuss the following:
  • The different theoretical perspectives on the topic.
  • The results of previous research on the topic.
  • The gaps in the literature that the study is addressing.
• In the discussion section, the authors could discuss the following:
  • The implications of the results for theory.
  • The implications of the results for practice.
  • The limitations of the study and future research directions.
• The manuscript could benefit from the inclusion of the following figures and tables:
  • A figure that summarizes the results of the literature review.
  • A table that summarizes the results of the study.

• The statistical analysis is well-described and appropriate for the data. The authors use a variety of statistical tests to analyze the data, including t-tests, ANOVAs, and correlational analyses. The results of the statistical analyses are presented in a clear and concise way.
• The use of eye-tracker data is well-justified and the data are analyzed in a thoughtful way. The authors use eye-tracker data to measure the participants' gaze behavior, which provides insights into how the participants are processing the stimuli. The results of the eye-tracker analysis are presented in a clear and concise way.

Overall, I think the statistical analysis and eye-tracker data are well-used in the manuscript. The authors use these methods to provide a comprehensive understanding of the participants' behavior. However, there are a few areas where the manuscript could be improved.

• The authors could provide more detail about the statistical analyses that they used. This would help other researchers to understand how the analyses were conducted and to replicate the results.
• The authors could discuss the limitations of the eye-tracker data. This would help to make the results more interpretable and to avoid over-interpretation of the data.

Overall, I think the manuscript is a good starting point, but it could be improved with some revisions.

Here are some specific suggestions for improvement:

• The authors could provide more detail about the statistical analyses that they used. This could be done by providing a table that summarizes the statistical tests that were used, the variables that were analyzed, and the results of the analyses.
• The authors could discuss the limitations of the eye-tracker data. This could be done by discussing the following:
  • The potential for participant bias.
  • The potential for eye-tracker error.
  • The fact that eye-tracker data only provide a partial measure of visual attention.

There are no significant issues detected. Just in case, please review one more time.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to congratulate the authors of this study, as what they present in this paper is very interested. 

The introduction is complete and clear, well thought out and helps to understand the topic of study. The objective is well written and precise.

In the methodology section, it should be taken into account that 17 participants are few when we are talking about an experimental situation, where it is not complex to carry out the study on a larger population. 

Another aspect that would be interesting for future lines would be to compare subjects of different ages and even subjects who are familiar with the region compared to those who are not. This could be very important in order to see the usefulness of the signalling in both types of population. 

The results section is very complete, explaining very well all the results obtained, which are many and interesting. 

In the discussion section, I miss a more in-depth discussion, using other studies that have been used in emergency situations in other populations such as doctors or health workers. There are many interesting results obtained in this research and very little contrasted with other relevant research used in emergency situations. I would recommend the authors to improve this section of the article, as it is a good and interesting piece of research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The abstract and conclusion need to be improved. The abstract must be a concise yet comprehensive reflection of what is in your paper. Please modify the abstract according to “motivation, description, results and conclusion” parts. I suggest extending the conclusions section to focus on the results you get, the method you propose, and their significance.

2. What is the motivation of the proposed method? The details of motivation and innovations are important for potential readers and journals. Please add this detailed description in the last paragraph in section I. Please modify the paragraph according to "For this paper, the main contributions are as follows: (1) ......" to Section I. Please give the details of motivations. In Section 1, I suggest the authors can amend your contributions of manuscript in the last of Section 1.

3. The description of manuscript is very important for potential reader and other researchers. I encourage the authors to have their manuscript proof-edited by a native English speaker to enhance the level of paper presentation. There are some occasional grammatical problems within the text. It may need the attention of someone fluent in English language to enhance the readability.

4. The introduction section of the paper needs to revise according to the timeline of technology development. Please update references with recent paper in CVPR, ICCV, ECCV et al and Elsevier, Springer. In your section 1 and section 2, I suggest the authors amend several related literatures and corresponding references in recent years. For example: FFTI: Image Inpainting Algorithm via Features Fusion and Two-Steps Inpainting (Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvcir.2023.103776); MFFN: image super-resolution via multi-level features fusion network (The Visual Computer, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00371-023-02795-0)

5. Please give the details of proposed method for proposed model. I suggest the authors amend the calculation of your size of proposed method and the details is important for proposed method.

6. The content of experiments needs to amend related experiments to compare related SOTA in recent three years. I recommend the authors amend related experimental results of proposed method of SOTA according to the published paper in IEEE, Springer and Elsevier. 

7. However, the manuscript, in its present form, contains several weaknesses. Adequate revisions to the following points should be undertaken in order to justify recommendation for publication.

8. In the conclusion section, the limitations of this study and suggested improvements of this work should be highlighted.

9. Provide a critical review of the previous "journal" (not conference) papers in the area and explain the inadequacies of previous approaches.

10. I suggest the authors revise Section 1 and Section 2. Please revise the content according to the development of timeline.

11. Please check all parameters in the manuscript and amend some related description of primary parameters. In section 3, please write the proposed algorithm in a proper algorithm/pseudocode format with section 3. Otherwise, it is very hard to follow. Some examples here: https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/204592/how-to-format-a-pseudocode-algorithm

 

None

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

none