Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents a report which is more the proof of concept (rather than an original scientific result). 

It describes how an experiment was developed: an experiment that put together many tools (the main ones two open source software: PyVHR and Openface/2) and allows one to use many statistical concepts. But, in the end, the experiment  just show that:

(1) It is possible to remotely assess  the heart rate of some subject by examining a video (in which the subject is present). Isn't this a commercial product?

(2) It is also possible to remotely examine facial reactions and label  cataloged facial reactions.

Not an easy task. But I do not see in it enough novelty to be published in a scientific journal. 

A large effort is put in explaining how to use the tools and collecting data tables (with numbers and qualifiers which do not convince that the schemes are novel and good). The claim that the luminosity degree influence the conclusion drawn from the visual observations are not exciting --- in the dark no conclusion is reachable).

No comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript contains interesting work evaluating the influence of room illumination on camera-based physiological measurements to assess screen-based media. However, the manuscript is written in style more like a report rather than a research article. The global innovativeness in research development hasn't been presented. Some figures and tables which involve world-wide novel research should be described and discussed with more details to emphasize the state-of-the-art-review all over the world novelty. Please use this the newest (2019-2023) Web of Science journal papers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents a study to evaluate the influence of room illumination on camera-based physiological measurement for the assessment of screen-based media..

The studied topic is interesting and also meaningful.

The paper still has some major problems.

The authors are suggested to revise the paper given the following comments.

 

Some surveys or overviews for image quality assessment and screen based media are suggested to be given for better referring of the relevant topics, for example, ‘Perceptual image quality assessment: a survey’, ‘Screen content quality assessment: overview, benchmark, and beyond’.

 

As discussed in some surveys and studies (‘Blind quality assessment based on pseudo-reference image’, ‘Blind image quality estimation via distortion aggravation’, ‘Unified blind quality assessment of compressed natural, graphic, and screen content images’, ‘Objective quality evaluation of dehazed images, ‘Quality evaluation of image dehazing methods using synthetic hazy images’), quality assessment is an important aspect of various intelligent systems, including camera-based heart rate and facial action measurement systems.

The authors may give some discussions on this aspect, as well as the above-mentioned works.

 

However as discussed in the literatures, ‘Study of subjective and objective quality assessment of audio-visual signals’, ‘A multimodal saliency model for videos with high audio-visual correspondence’ and ‘Fixation prediction through multimodal analysis’, audio and visual cues will fuse and together shape the overall experience.

The authors are suggested to give some discussions on this aspect and the above works.

 

The whole paper is suggested to be double-checked to remove all possible issues.

The whole paper is suggested to be double-checked to remove all possible issues.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Please see the attached report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The offered content appears to be clear and well-written in English. The sentences are properly organised, and the information is successfully presented. There are no obvious grammar or spelling mistakes, and the terminology is appropriate for an academic or technical article. Based on the provided content, the overall English quality is good.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors wrote in their rebuttal:

The aim of this research was to explore the feasibility of using a multimodal camera-based physiological measurement solution for the assessment of screen-based media viewing experiences in cinematic conditions.

I don't quite understand what is the aim of the research.

I praise the authors effort in trying to write down their discoveries.  But regretfully I do not extract any meaning from what I read. So can't recommend publication of these results in the current forum.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Most of the previous concerns have been addressed. Some of the relevant topics are also discussed in the current paper. The previously recommended works and papers are highly relevant to the related topics, which are suggested to be referred to in the paper.

None

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have addressed my concerns and the paper can be now accepted.

It is recommended to send the paper out for a round of proofreading by a native speaker.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf