Towards Spatial Awareness: Real-Time Sensory Augmentation with Smart Glasses for Visually Impaired Individuals

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses the important issue of Sensory Augmentation with Smart Glasses. However, in my opinion, it requires a major revision:

(1) The coverage of existing literature is very shallow and it is not clear what is the main contribution of the paper

(2) The paper is very difficult to read. For example, a modified Dijstra's algorithm is presented. What is the intuition behind this? Does using a priority queue change the complexity to an acceptable level? O(log N) is better than O(N) but does it matter? What are the typical values of N?  A simple graphical example must be presented to show what is achieved - in the present form the paper is extremely difficult to follow

(3) What are the major challenges, and why is the proposed approach better?

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their time, constructive comments and insightful feedback. Their careful scrutiny has contributed to the clarity, rigor and quality of this manuscript. We have addressed all of the concerns raised, and revised the manuscript thoroughly as discussed in our attached point-by-point response. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript describes a holistic system for visually impaired persons.

The manuscript is written very general, without necessary details which will closely described methods used.

The system seems complex including various tactile and visual sensors. Each part of the system represents a complex system by itself and requires much more detailed description, which is not the case in this paper.

The analysis, testing and comparison of the system with the existing solutions is poorly described. There is no information about how many visually impaired persons were included in testing. Where the testing is made?

Description of used sensors is also poorly described. What exact sensor models are used?

How the smart glasses are communicating with remote computing systems? Wi-Fi?

In general, the proposed system is described more as a list of wishes and not as the real existing system.

Author Response

We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their time, constructive comments and insightful feedback. Their careful scrutiny has contributed to the clarity, rigor and quality of this manuscript. We have addressed all of the concerns raised, and revised the manuscript thoroughly as discussed in our attached point-by-point response. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my previous concerns. The paper can be published in the present form

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We are very pleased to hear that we have successfully addressed your previous concerns and that you find the paper suitable for publication in its present form. We appreciate your time and positive assessment of our work.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although there are some improvements and clarifications made, still it is not clear how evaluations of the system were made.

I do not see if blind persons used the system or not, or just general technical evaluations are made.

I still think without the actual blind persons using it, the true evaluations cannot be made. The general evaluations of the system’s technical performances are not enough. They are maybe sufficient for comparison with other systems, but the true system’s value can be determined only if blind persons evaluate it.

Author Response

We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their time, constructive comments and insightful feedback. Their careful scrutiny has contributed to the clarity, rigor and quality of this manuscript. We have addressed all of the concerns raised, and revised the manuscript thoroughly as discussed in our attached point-by-point response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments