Wearable Hearing Assist System to Provide Hearing-Dog Functionality^†

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this manuscript, authors developed a wearable hearing assist system to identify the location of sound source using short-term interaural time differences (ITDs). The algorithm and experimental results were presented comprehensively. Although this algorithm has been proposed by Baumann et al. in 2015, this work is still meaningful since it was demonstrated by solid experimental results. However, I did have two comments to this work as below:

1.     In this work, there is a major assumption: the sound source is always located in front of robot head and not in the rear when the robot head is moving. However, it would not be valid in real case. And the ITD signal would be same between the facing to the sound source and backing to it. How can this wearable hearing assist system potentially resolve this issue? 

2.     In line 148 and 149, it should be XL(t) and XR(t).

Author Response

Dear MDPI Robotics editors                                                                                    

Thank you for your notification of our manuscript, and reviewer’s kind suggestions.

I revised our manuscript, taking into account remarks of all reviewers as follows.

(Reviewer 1)

1.     In this work, there is a major assumption: the sound source is always located in front of robot head and not in the rear when the robot head is moving. However, it would not be valid in real case. And the ITD signal would be same between the facing to the sound source and backing to it. How can this wearable hearing assist system potentially resolve this issue?

 Ans : The reason why could “Cone of confusion” be resolved was described in Discussion from line 471 to 475.

2.     In line 148 and 149, it should be XL(t) and XR(t).

 Ans : Exactly, I revised them in line 156.

(Reviewer 2)

   I encourage authors to review similar solutions existing on the market or any attempts in research focused in the similar domain, so that novelty is well-established. Even if similar models were discussed, not existing potential solutions for end users were sufficiently presented. I encourage authors to discuss about practical implications of their findings.

·         How do the authors predict experimental testing? How the future outlook is set? Please, discuss about ethical issues as well.

 Ans : Our research goal, practical implication and future outlook was described in Conclusion from line 525 to 540, for clarifying our novelty. We described about ethical issues from line 532 to 533. We compared vibration with visual display from line 534 to 540.

  Moreover, not much words are dedicated to explanation of hearing loss. Please, provide more details on hearing loss, levels of hearing loss, as well as which hearing loss group is addressed by your study.

 Ans : We described Hearing loss from line 33 to 35 and from 38 to 41.

Sincerely,

Prof. Ryuichi Shimoyama, Dr.

Nihon University

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

·         I commend authors for clear read thread in the introduction. The text is easy to read and it explains in a clear manner the problem.

·         I encourage authors to review similar solutions existing on the market or any attempts in research focused in the similar domain, so that novelty is well-established. Even if similar models were discussed, not existing potential solutions for end users were sufficiently presented.

·         I encourage authors to discuss about practical implications of their findings.

·         How do the authors predict experimental testing? How the future outlook is set? Please, discuss about ethical issues as well.

·         Moreover, not much words are dedicated to explanation of hearing loss. Please, provide more details on hearing loss, levels of hearing loss, as well as which hearing loss group is addressed by your study.

Author Response

Dear MDPI Robotics editors                                                                                     

Thank you for your notification of our manuscript, and reviewer’s kind suggestions.

I revised our manuscript, taking into account remarks of all reviewers as follows.

(Reviewer 1)

1.     In this work, there is a major assumption: the sound source is always located in front of robot head and not in the rear when the robot head is moving. However, it would not be valid in real case. And the ITD signal would be same between the facing to the sound source and backing to it. How can this wearable hearing assist system potentially resolve this issue?

 Ans : The reason why could “Cone of confusion” be resolved was described in Discussion from line 471 to 475.

2.     In line 148 and 149, it should be XL(t) and XR(t).

 Ans : Exactly, I revised them in line 156.

(Reviewer 2)

   I encourage authors to review similar solutions existing on the market or any attempts in research focused in the similar domain, so that novelty is well-established. Even if similar models were discussed, not existing potential solutions for end users were sufficiently presented. I encourage authors to discuss about practical implications of their findings.

·         How do the authors predict experimental testing? How the future outlook is set? Please, discuss about ethical issues as well.

 Ans : Our research goal, practical implication and future outlook was described in Conclusion from line 525 to 540, for clarifying our novelty. We described about ethical issues from line 532 to 533. We compared vibration with visual display from line 534 to 540.

  Moreover, not much words are dedicated to explanation of hearing loss. Please, provide more details on hearing loss, levels of hearing loss, as well as which hearing loss group is addressed by your study.

 Ans : We described Hearing loss from line 33 to 35 and from 38 to 41.

Sincerely,

Prof. Ryuichi Shimoyama, Dr.

Nihon University

Author Response File: Author Response.docx