Implementation and Evaluation of a VR/AR-Based Assistive Technology for Dyslexic Learners: An Exploratory Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Feedback

This article addressed the issue of digital divide affecting students with learning disabilities, focusing on how digital resources impacts their educational outcomes. It presents a pilot study that designs and evaluates a VR/AR-Based assistive technology for students with dyslexia. The study offers insights into the practical application of advanced technology in educational settings and provides some information for researchers who are exploring technology-driven interventions for students with dyslexia.

However, the following issues should be addressed prior to publication.

1. Research Question

Issue: There is no research question in this article.

Recommendation: Research questions should be clearly articulated in the paper.

2. Question about Design

 Issue: The title, “Design and Evaluation of a VR/AR-Based Assistive Technology for Dyslexic Learners: A Pilot Exploratory Study” indicate this article will detail the design process. However, I haven’t found any information direct talk about how they design the VR/AR tool used for the intervention, I do found paragraph introduce the technology they used in the research (section 2.1. Instruments and applications), but those paragraphs are background information about the technology and have nothing to do with design. Is this a researcher developed tool or a commercial tool? Why use design in the title?

Recommendation: More information about how they design the VR/AR tool should be provided.

3. Participants

Issue: The author mentioned two contrasting cases participants in this research (Line 120. However, two sections in this article discuss about participants. Participants A and Participant B for the Technology Acceptance Model (From Line 84 to Line 92), and Case 1 and Case 2 for the intervention (From Line 122 to Line 129). It’s confusing, are they the same or different participants?

Recommendation: More details about participants should be provided.

4. Virtual Reality (VR) Intervention Case

Issue: The Baseline Cognitive Profile measures eight variables, after 8 weeks intervention, a post-intervention outcome was provided. But the outcome for “instruction comprehension” is missing. Why there is no posttest outcome for “instruction comprehension”? (in the 3.1.2 Post-Intervention Outcomes” section, from Line 162 to Line 174).

Recommendation: provide the missing data for “instruction comprehension”.

5. Augmented Reality (AR) Intervention Case

Issue: Why there is no result for “naming speed” and “narrative memory” in the baseline but have the result in the post-test? (in the 3.2.1 “Baseline Cognitive Profile” section, from Line 183 to Line 193).

Recommendation: provide the missing data.

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the thoughtful and constructive feedback provided. Your comments have been extremely helpful in enhancing the clarity, coherence, and depth of the manuscript. Below, we respond point by point to each of your suggestions, indicating the corresponding revisions made in the text.
All modifications have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript to facilitate the review process.

 

Reviewer’s comment 1:
“There are no research questions in this article. Research questions should be clearly articulated.”

Response:
We fully agree with the reviewer’s observation. Research questions are essential for guiding the reader through the objectives and scope of the study. In response, we have explicitly included three research questions at the end of the Introduction section, aligned with the exploratory nature of the research:

1. What effects can be observed in specific cognitive functions (such as working memory, attention, and processing speed) in students with dyslexia after an intervention based on Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality?
2. What impact do these interventions have on variables related to motivation and attitudes toward learning?
3. How do students perceive the usefulness and ease of use of the technologies implemented during the intervention?

Reviewer’s comment 2:
“The title suggests that the article will detail the design process of the VR/AR tool, but no such information is provided. Was the tool developed by the authors or is it a commercial product?”

Response:
Thank you for this clarification. The reviewer is absolutely right: the original title could lead to the mistaken impression that the article presents the design of a custom-developed tool. In fact, the intervention was carried out using existing commercial VR/AR applications, selected by the researchers based on pedagogical and technical criteria.

To avoid confusion, we have revised the title of the manuscript to:
“Application of VR/AR-based technologies in students with dyslexia: an exploratory case study”

Additionally, in Section 2.1, we now specify that the tools were not developed by the research team, but are commercially available applications chosen for their relevance to the context and target population.

Reviewer’s comment 3:
“The article refers to Participants A and B, and also to Case 1 and Case 2. Are these the same individuals?”

Response:
Thank you for highlighting this inconsistency. We confirm that the same two individuals were referred to using different labels. In the original version, “Participants A/B” were used in the Technology Acceptance Model section, while “Case 1/2” were used in the intervention section, which understandably may have caused confusion.

We have now unified the terminology throughout the manuscript. All references to the participants consistently use the labels “Case 1” and “Case 2”.

 

Reviewer’s comment 4:
“In Section 3.1.2, the post-intervention result for ‘instruction comprehension’ is missing, even though it was assessed in the baseline.”

Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to detail. Indeed, due to an oversight, we omitted the post-test result for this variable. We have now added the corresponding post-intervention data for “instruction comprehension” in Section 3.1.2, using the same reporting format as for the other variables.

 

Reviewer’s comment 5:
“Why are there no baseline results for ‘naming speed’ and ‘narrative memory’ in Case 2 (Section 3.2.1), although post-test results are provided?”

Response:
Thank you for this important observation. The absence of baseline results for these two variables is due to logistical constraints during the initial assessment. It was not possible to administer the subtests for ‘naming speed’ and ‘narrative memory’ at baseline due to scheduling and availability issues.

We have now added a clarification in Section 3.2.1, explaining this circumstance and justifying the absence of baseline data for those specific variables.

 

We remain at the disposal of the editorial team and reviewers for any further clarification or adjustments required. Once again, we sincerely thank you for your time and valuable contributions, which have significantly improved the quality of the manuscript.

Sincerely,
María Lozano Álvarez
18/07/2025

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work presents a very interesting new perspective to the treatment of dyslexia through the VR and AR, but the research method is absolutely not appropriate to draw any conclusion on the efficacy of the treatment. When the sample size is N=2, it is not applicable any group design; hence, the authors should describe their research as a case-study design, providing the reader  specific data on each case. In the present form, the work is useful to present some technological tools, but it does not allow the reader to get information on the efficacy of such tools in the treatment of dyslexia.

Another limitation of this work is that the introduction does not present the distinction between general and specific abilities and does not face with the literature on comorbidity, even though a case is presented, who is carachterized by a comorbidity between dyslexia and ADHD. The technological tools presented in the work are aimed to improve general abilities: attention, memory, ecc., but which is the relationship between such general ability and reading/writing ability?

 

Author Response

We are deeply grateful to Reviewer 2 for the insightful and constructive feedback. Your comments have greatly contributed to refining and strengthening the manuscript. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised.
All modifications have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript for ease of review.

Reviewer’s comment:
“The article lacks clearly stated research questions.”

Response:
Thank you for this valuable observation. We have now added a dedicated section (Section 1.1) titled Research Questions, which explicitly presents the three questions guiding this exploratory case study. These questions focus on the cognitive effects of the interventions, user perception, and the influence of participant characteristics. This addition enhances the methodological clarity and theoretical grounding of the manuscript.

Reviewer’s comment:
“The title refers to the ‘design’ of an assistive technology, but the article does not detail the development process of the VR/AR tool.”

Response:
We appreciate this clarification. As noted, the tools used in the study were not developed by the authors but are part of the FORDYSVAR project, a European initiative involving educators, neuroscientists, and developers. The research team’s role was focused on pedagogical implementation, not technical development.

To avoid misunderstanding, we have updated the manuscript accordingly:

• The title has been revised to remove the reference to “design”:
  New title: Implementation and Evaluation of a VR/AR-Based Assistive Technology for Dyslexic Learners: An Exploratory Case Study
• In Section 2.1, we now clearly specify that the applications are commercially available and describe how the research team customized their use for each participant.

 

Reviewer’s comment:
“The distinction between Participant A/B and Case 1/2 is unclear. Are they the same individuals?”

Response:
Thank you for noting this point. We confirm that Participant A = Case A (VR) and Participant B = Case B (AR). To eliminate confusion, we have unified the terminology throughout the manuscript. The manuscript now consistently uses Case A and Case B across all sections, including TAM and results (Sections 2.1, 2.4, and 3). This ensures coherence and facilitates comprehension.

 

Reviewer’s comment:
“The results section omits post-intervention data for ‘instruction comprehension’ in the VR case.”

Response:
We appreciate this important observation. The post-intervention data for this variable have now been included in Section 3.1.2. The data indicate no change between pre- and post-test scores (12 correct / 8 errors in both), and the discussion acknowledges this stagnation, suggesting the need for complementary strategies in future interventions.

 

Reviewer’s comment:
“Why are there no baseline results for these variables in the AR case, although post-test data are included?”

Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. The baseline results for “naming speed” and “narrative memory” were in fact collected but were omitted in the initial version due to an editing oversight. These data have now been added to Section 3.2.1:

• Naming Speed: 10 correct / 8 errors
• Narrative Memory: 14 correct / 9 errors

The results show mild-to-moderate deficits at baseline, supporting the interpretation of post-intervention improvement.

 

Una vez más, extendemos nuestro más sincero agradecimiento al Revisor 2 por la lectura atenta y las útiles recomendaciones. Estas sugerencias han mejorado sustancialmente la claridad, el rigor y la integridad del manuscrito.
Todos los cambios se han resaltado en amarillo en la versión revisada para facilitar su identificación.

Atentamente,María
Lozano Álvarez
18/07/2025

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The updated version addressed the former mentioned issues. It includes research questions, added participant information and provides missing data. The revised version improved its overall coherence. 

 

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Reviewer 1 for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the positive evaluation provided. We appreciate the recognition of our work and the encouraging comments. Although no further revisions were requested, we carefully reviewed the manuscript again to ensure clarity, accuracy, and consistency throughout the text. Thank you for your support.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The new perspective of the research (the case-study design) improved the methodological approach of the work, even though it is possible to make the results stronger than in the present form, through the application of the chi-square statistics. I invite the authors to make a comparison between pre- and post- training scores within each participant. In other words, for each test reported in Table 1, in which a significant change can be assumed, it should be made a 2x2 cross-tab, to verify the significance of the change between the two observations. Moreover, it is not clear the meaning of the y-axis on the Figures 1 and 2. Please insert a title for that axis.

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for the insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which have contributed to significantly improving the quality and clarity of our manuscript. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each of the reviewer’s observations.

1. Comment: “The new perspective of the research (case study design) improved the methodological approach of the work.”

Response:
Thank you for this positive feedback. We are pleased that the revised methodological approach using an exploratory case study design is now clearer and more robust.

2. Comment: “It is possible to strengthen the results with the application of chi-square statistics. I invite the authors to conduct a comparison between pre- and post-training scores for each participant. In other words, for each test reported in Table 1, a 2x2 cross-tabulation should be performed to verify the significance of change between the two observations.”

Response:
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. In response, we constructed 2x2 contingency tables for each NEPSY-II subtest, comparing pre- and post-intervention performance for both participants individually. We applied a chi-square test of independence to each table to assess the significance of the observed changes. While some subtests showed notable performance differences (e.g., Phonological Processing, Narrative Memory), none of the chi-square tests reached statistical significance, which was expected given the limited number of observations per cell. Therefore, the results are reported for descriptive and illustrative purposes only, and their interpretation is presented with due caution in the revised manuscript (see section 3.4).

3. Comment: “The meaning of the Y-axis in Figures 1 and 2 is unclear. Please insert a label for that axis.”

Respuesta:
Gracias por señalar esto. Hemos actualizado las Figuras 1 y 2 para incluir una etiqueta clara en el eje Y: "Número de respuestas correctas". También hemos actualizado las leyendas de las figuras para especificar el significado del eje para mayor claridad. Este cambio asegura que las figuras se expliquen por sí mismas y se puedan interpretar por sí mismas.

Por favor, háganos saber si necesita más aclaraciones o revisiones. Una vez más, apreciamos mucho su cuidadosa revisión y su útil orientación.