SRD Method: Integrating Autostereoscopy and Gesture Interaction for Immersive Serious Game-Based Behavioral Skills Training
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComment
Overall
(1) Very interesting research and I agree with the theme.
However, until now, there have been a lot of previous studies that have focused on examples of educational materials in serious games, such as VR. However, what difference would you expect to see in XR? We would like you to mention them.
Regarding the diagram
(1) We would like you to insert Figures 1 and 8 in the appropriate introductory sections, as they are relevant to the overall research design.
Discussion of synesthesia
(2) In the discussion of hardware in chapter 3, I was concerned that only the requirement for “visual information” is mentioned. The linkage of sound and images brings about “synaesthesia,” but I was concerned that the discussion of fine tuning in those resolutions was not even introduced in the variables.
Hearing compensates for those functions, especially when vision is weak, and vice versa. I would like to see a discussion of the elements and a mention of them as an issue with respect to these variables.
(3) A comparison and discussion with previous studies regarding the validity of the thermite response experiment would be more convincing.
(4) Selection of users, experimental subjects, subject attributes, experimental tolerance, etc.
conditions, such as users, selection of experimental subjects, subject attributes, experimental tolerance, etc. Especially when it comes to experiments, is there a possibility that information other than the differences we want to obtain in the original Thermite reaction experiment may be extracted as answers due to the subject's strengths or weaknesses in the subject's attributes? I would like to see consideration of these issues.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Congratulations on choosing and writing the article on the topic, which is innovative for today's times.
Below I present some suggestions for improvement:
Introduction: The introduction presents the context of the study and the relevance of applying the SRD Method well. The literature review is extensive and covers several immersive XR and BST approaches. However, direct comparisons with other behavioral skills training approaches are lacking to better highlight the advantages of the SRD Method, and it would be interesting to more clearly emphasize the specific gap in the literature that the study seeks to fill.
Methodology: The methodology is very detailed and accurately describes the devices used, gesture-based interaction and application development in Unity3D. I would suggest providing more detail on the data collection procedures and statistical analyses used, better justifying the choice of sample and how size can impact the results.
Results: The results are presented with statistical rigor, using appropriate tests to analyze differences between groups. However, some tables could be simplified to improve visual understanding. It would also be interesting to have a more in-depth discussion on the implications of the results for large-scale behavioral skills training. Additionally, including comparative graphs can make it easier to visualize the improvements achieved with the SRD Method.
Discussion: The discussion addresses the advantages of SRD well, such as immersion and interactivity, but could explore the technological limitations further, such as possible solutions to improve the accuracy of gesture recognition and expand the application to different contexts. It would be interesting to have a more in-depth discussion on the implications of the results for large-scale behavioral skills training.
Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the main findings well, reinforcing the impact of the SRD Method in behavioral skills training. It represents a significant contribution to the field of human-computer interaction and XR-based training. However, it could suggest more concrete future directions for the development and scaling of the technology.
Kind regards
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents an interesting proposal by addressing a problem such as the limitations of traditional behavioral skills training (BST) methods and the drawbacks of conventional extended reality devices such as HMDs.
The introduction adequately sets the context of the research, identifying the transition of BST from traditional methods towards more immersive and informative experiences. The authors correctly justify the need for their research by pointing out three specific challenges: the inconvenience associated with HMDs, the limitations of traditional video-dependent methods, and the lack of research on users' subjective experiences. The structure of the introduction is clear and provides a good foundation for the rest of the article.
The theoretical framework is well developed, covering relevant aspects such as immersive XR technologies, common interaction methods, behavioral skills training, and serious games. The review is thorough and current, citing recent research and establishing connections between the different concepts. However, some theoretical aspects of autostereoscopy and its previous applications in educational settings could have been further elaborated. As for the research objectives, five specific points are presented that clearly outline what the authors aim to achieve. The formulation is adequate, although some objectives could have been expressed more concisely to avoid overlaps. Perhaps, because of these overlaps, they could be reduced to three objectives, instead of five.
Rather than calling the parts of this article "chapters", I find it would be more appropriate to call them sections.
The methodology is well organized, describing the hardware used, the interaction methods, and the application developed. The authors explain in detail the implementation of each component and justify their design decisions. The use of the aluminothermic reaction experiment as a case study is appropriate given its hazardous nature in real environments, which highlights the value of the proposed solution. However, it would have been useful to include more details about the application development process, such as the technical challenges encountered and how they were resolved.
The design of the user study is well laid out, with a clear separation between control and experimental groups, and a logical sequence of activities. The objective and subjective measures selected are appropriate and well justified. The inclusion of indicators derived from established questionnaires (PQ, IMI, SUS) strengthens the validity of the evaluation.
The presentation of results is comprehensive and well structured. Tables and figures are informative and adequately complement the text. Statistical analyses appear appropriate for the data collected. Figures 9, 10 and 11-13 are particularly useful for visualising the differences between the methods evaluated. Furthermore, all figures are of good quality and provide much clarity, both in terms of methodology and results.
The discussion section effectively integrates the quantitative results with the qualitative interviews, providing a holistic view of the advantages and disadvantages of the SRD method. The authors honestly address the limitations of their approach, which strengthens the credibility of their conclusions. However, it could have benefited from a more explicit comparison with other similar studies. I am aware that there are not many studies on the topic and therefore, you do not need to take this suggestion into consideration.
The conclusions are consistent with the results presented and adequately summarize the contributions of the study. The authors correctly highlight the practical implications of their work and suggest directions for future research. In addition, the conclusions presented are clear, concise, and direct.
In terms of formal aspects, there is an adequate correspondence between the citations in the text and the references listed at the end. The reference format is consistent.
The English used is generally correct,
Some specific areas that could be improved are: the sample size (32 participants) is relatively small for some of the statistical tests performed and the authors acknowledge this by using tests suitable for small samples; but a more explicit discussion of the limitations of the sample size would have been valuable. The transfer of skills from the virtual environment to the real world could also have been further explored. Although the authors assessed the participants’ ability to simulate the steps of the experiment, a more rigorous assessment of knowledge transfer would have strengthened the conclusions. And finally, the article could benefit from a more extensive discussion of the scalability and economic viability of the SRD method in various educational contexts, especially considering the cost of the hardware required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
This article accept in present form.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageDear authors,
This article accept in present form.
