Design of an Emotional Facial Recognition Task in a 3D Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Participant Imbalance:

   • The manuscript does not explain why the number of participants in the control and experimental groups differ.

   • There is no discussion regarding the unbalanced gender ratio among participants, which raises concerns about the generalizability of the findings.

2. Ethnic Homogeneity of Test Samples:

   • All test samples are of Caucasian descent, which may introduce bias. The lack of ethnic diversity limits the applicability of the results to broader populations.

3. Inadequate Questionnaire Design:

   • The questionnaire consists of too few items. Expanding the list to at least 10 questions and aligning it with the established UEQ standard would strengthen the study’s methodology.

4. Data Availability:

   • The dataset used for the study is not provided. Given the emphasis on user testing, it is crucial to share relevant documents and data to allow for reproducibility and further analysis.

Recommendation for Improvement:

It is recommended that the authors conduct additional experiments to address the issues related to participant numbers, gender balance, and racial bias. Enhancing the questionnaire and making the dataset available would also substantially improve the robustness and credibility of the study.

Author Response

Comment 1: Participant Imbalance: The manuscript does not explain why the number of participants in the control and experimental groups differ. here is no discussion regarding the unbalanced gender ratio among participants, which raises concerns about the generalizability of the findings.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. The control group consists of 18 participants, and the experimental group has 19, which we believe does not constitute a significant imbalance. However, we acknowledge the gender imbalance, particularly in the control group (6 men and 12 women). This is due to the fact that the sample primarily consisted of psychology students, a field where female students tend to be the majority. Additionally, the study was conducted during the pandemic, which made access to the sample particularly challenging. We will mention these factors as limitations in the manuscript.

Comments 2: Ethnic Homogeneity of Test Samples: All test samples are of Caucasian descent, which may introduce bias. The lack of ethnic diversity limits the applicability of the results to broader populations.

Response 2: Thank you for your comment. Since this is a pilot study, we chose to test it on Caucasian participants due to availability. However, we acknowledge the limitation regarding ethnic diversity and recognize its potential impact on the generalizability of the results. In future research, we plan to extend the study to other racial groups. In fact, a recent study has already been conducted among Slavic participants in Poland, demonstrating our commitment to increasing diversity in our samples.

Comment 3: Inadequate Questionnaire Design: The questionnaire consists of too few items. Expanding the list to at least 10 questions and aligning it with the established UEQ standard would strengthen the study’s methodology.

Response 3: Thank you for your comment. The questions included in the questionnaire do not have a significant impact on the study's main findings. They are control measures designed to ensure that the implementation of the task in the laboratory was carried out correctly. However, we appreciate your suggestion and will consider refining the questionnaire in future studies to enhance its methodological rigor

Comment 4: Data Availability: The dataset used for the study is not provided. Given the emphasis on user testing, it is crucial to share relevant documents and data to allow for reproducibility and further analysis.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. The dataset is available upon request from the authors of the article. We acknowledge the importance of data sharing for reproducibility and further analysis and are happy to provide the data to interested researchers.

Comment 5: Recommendation for Improvement:

Response 5: It is recommended that the authors conduct additional experiments to address the issues related to participant numbers, gender balance, and racial bias. Enhancing the questionnaire and making the dataset available would also substantially improve the robustness and credibility of the study.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful recommendations. This study is a pilot, and our primary goal was to ensure that the basic task works effectively and performs better than the classic version. As we have mentioned before, our intention is to continue exploring differences related to gender, culture, and other sources of variability in emotion recognition, such as the broader autism phenotype or schizotypy.

We acknowledge the importance of increasing participant numbers, achieving better gender balance, and addressing potential biases, and we aim to incorporate these improvements in future studies. Additionally, we appreciate your suggestion regarding the questionnaire and dataset, and we will consider ways to enhance accessibility and transparency in future research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is innovative and can reflect the value of the research, but the content needs some revisions:
(1) I think there is ambiguity in the expression of 3D format in the paper, it should be referring to the 3D environment.
(2) Has Playing Time had an impact on the experimental results? It is recommended to add differential analysis.
(3) Suggest adding differential analysis of experimental results between male and female participants.

Author Response

Comment 1: I think there is ambiguity in the expression of 3D environment in the paper, it should be referring to the 3D environment.

Response 1: I apologize for the ambiguity in the expression of "3D environment" in the paper. I accept your suggestion, and in fact, I had already considered using that terminology in future studies. Thank you for your feedback!

Comments 2: Has Playing Time had an impact on the experimental results? It is recommended to add differential analysis.

Response 2: Thank you for your insightful comment. Time has been studied but not analyzed due to the layout of the room. Since the distance from the starting point to the different emotions varies, we believe this time may be biased. For example, the time it would take a person to respond to happiness or the neutral emotion, located at the edges of the room, would be longer than for central emotions, such as disgust. Your suggestion is very relevant, and in future studies, we could randomize the location of the faces and analyze the impact of playing time on the results.

Comment 3: Suggest adding differential analysis of experimental results between male and female participants.

Response 3: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. We conducted differential analyses between male and female participants; however, the results were not statistically significant. Therefore, they were not initially included in the manuscript. Nevertheless, we appreciate your insight and have now incorporated these analyses into the Results section and further discussed them in the Discussion section.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has responded correctly.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The issues of concern have been basically modified, and I agree to accept the article.