Next Article in Journal
An Empirical Study on the Differences between Online Picture Reviews and Text Reviews
Next Article in Special Issue
Complex Causal Extraction of Fusion of Entity Location Sensing and Graph Attention Networks
Previous Article in Journal
Coded Parallel Transmission for Half-Duplex Distributed Computing
Peer-Review Record

A Multi-Sensory Guidance System for the Visually Impaired Using YOLO and ORB-SLAM

Information 2022, 13(7), 343;
by Zaipeng Xie 1,2,*,‡, Zhaobin Li 2,‡, Yida Zhang 2, Jianan Zhang 2, Fangming Liu 2 and Wei Chen 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Information 2022, 13(7), 343;
Submission received: 15 June 2022 / Revised: 8 July 2022 / Accepted: 13 July 2022 / Published: 15 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligence Computing and Systems)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper proposes a multi-sensory guidance system for the visually impaired. Authors have combined  YOLO and 12 ORB-SLAM to enable visually impaired persons safely (this is an important societal work).

The paper is well written, is clear to understand and is, to some point, well structured. Still, when a now model or approach is presented, in my opinion, its very important to have a "work limitations" section. Also it was important an more in-deep review of the art, before to present the proposed system.

The presented system is very interesting and with merit indeed. Its a fine work. But could (and should in my opinion) be improved with the mentioned issues. 



Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, a multi-sensory guidance system for the visually impaired using YOLO and ORB-SLAM is proposed. This paper combines some algorithms together to accomplish a navigation and path planning task. This paper can be accepted after minor revision.

(1) The algorithm structure of ORB-SLAM and the brief introduction of YOLO are given. However, the algorithm flow of the whole process is lack, which is more interested to readers;

(2) The detail parameters of the experimental setups should be given clearly in a Table;

(3) What's the meaning of Fig.2. At least the axis units should be added.

(4) In Tab.2, what's the unit of mAP?

(5) In comparison part, only the comparison results are given, but the analysis should be added. Why the proposed method get the best result? What's the disadvantage of other tranditional methods?

(6)  It's better to analyze the computation complexity of the proposed method.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop