Built Environment Evaluation in Virtual Reality Environments—A Cognitive Neuroscience Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an article that addresses a scientific phenomenon from a very unusual perspective. The authors mix two theoretically very heterogeneous concepts, such as sensory perception and urban design in a quite innovative way.

No similar articles were found in the bibliography of the authors consulted in the internet databases (researchgate, crossref, sciencedirect, etc.).

The article can therefore be classified as relevant, being the subject worthy of scientific investigation. Even so, various deficiencies and minor oversights that must be corrected have been detected in the text.

Consequently, I recommend its publication once the authors have satisfactorily incorporated the improvements indicated below.

• The bibliographic references do not follow a homogeneous format. Sometimes MDPI format is used and other times it is used in APA format. It is necessary to homogenize using the format required by the journal.
• The diagram in figure one needs a little more explanation beyond the opening sentence of this section. It is not clear the link between each of the elements of this scheme with the different points explained in the methodology section.
• Figure two needs a geographic contextualization. A small location map in one corner of the figure would help to understand where the study area is exactly located. A scale and a north arrow are also missing.
• A legend explaining what the terms AF, LUM, SCA and DS mean is missing in figure nine.
• I do not understand the list of footnotes after the bibliography section 
• EEG score and performance metrics obtaining is not clear, some kind of formula or detailed description of data source in the methodology section would be recommendable.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

We thank you very much for your thorough review, your time and expertise! Your comments and suggestions have helped us to improve our manuscript tremendously. Just want to send you our appreciation and gratitude!

You can find our response in the attached PDF files. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with the presentation of an experimental study combining an immersive virtual environment and electroencephalogram as a tool to evaluate urban built environment. The topic is interesting and open a new way in this issue. Experimental data are presented and commented. Here are some comments that could help to improve the paper: It is suggested to incorporate “urban” in the title.

My main concern with the manuscript is the vague description of the methodology. Given the description, the reader is not able to follow each step of the analysis and potentially replicate the methodology and understand the rationale for each decision taken along the way:

-       A brief and concise explanation of the method used should be given before fig 1

-       Data. “122 variables are investigated”. Which ones? How do the authors select them? They are described insufficiently.

-       There are only 8 experiment participants. This is a small number that should be explained and justified

-       What are the urban conditions in Pre-PL and Post-PL? What are the criteria to these two conditions?

-       What are the characteristics of the equipment (VR headset and mobile EEG)?...

The obtained result is poorly discussed and not proven by further research (validation experiments and/or sensitivity analysis).

Virtual reality is considerated only as visual, there is no aural stimuli considered (https://doi.org/10.3390/app10072397). This decision should be adequately justified, (lines 279-282 are insufficient) Minor issues: Some References are required in subsection “The cognitive neuroscience approach…” (lines 77-108) Please, references should be in accordance with the instructions of the journal: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/urbansci/instructions Please, define each abbreviation, e.g. fMRI, as well as the first time it appears in the text, e.g. EEG 

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you very much for such detailed review!  We found your comments are extremely helpful, thank you for helping us improving our manuscript.  We have addressed all your comments below. In additional, we highlighted the revisions in the revised manuscript as well.

You can find our response in the attached PDF. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors of the manuscript "Built Environment Evaluation in Virtual Reality Environments - A Cognitive Neuroscience Approach" try to propose a form of project evaluation as an alternative to post-occupancy surveys (POS) based on the use of Virtual Reality. The objective of this proposal for a methodological change is to prevent design problems that would be very costly once the project has been developed. For this they propose to use the method of electroencephalography (EEG).

Although the idea that the authors are trying to develop is interesting, the level of the paper is very poor. Information is missing and what exists is exposed in a disorderly way. There are numerous formatting problems. There is no correct citation / reference according to the journal's criteria. The lack of rigor in writing does not allow us to delve into the quality of the results.

• The introduction and background literature sections are confusing due to the lack of consistency of citations.
• The methodology section begins with an unexplained figure. The methodology is not explained nor is the research design established. The authors begin this section with data collection. In this same section they erroneously include results of significance of variables, as well as Figure 8 with final results. Next they explain the construction of scenarios to visualize them in VR. They had previously indicated the factors to be measured, but at no time did they expose the limitations regarding POS, such as the real recreation of lighting, smell, sound, ... The authors explain the sample of eight participants and use descriptors such as the mean age, a value that does not make any sense.
• There are also errors in the reference to figures. Example: refer to the device and point to figure 6 (line 222).
• In lines 126-127, the authors indicate "The concept of mixed reality, which includes both virtual reality (VR) and augmented vitality (AV)". Shouldn't it be Augmented Reality?
• Quotes do not follow the criteria of the journal template. There are even changes in their format from the beginning of the document, example: line 12 and line 13. I do not list all the errors because they happen continuously. Usually the authors include the reference number and then the authorship of the same in parentheses, a duplicity of styles that is not followed by the journal template. At other times, it only uses the parenthesis format, similar to the APA standard. In addition, in the list of references at the end of the document, they are listed from 1 to 75, but then others are listed, with a different format, from 1 to 9. At no time does the style of references follow the format requested by the publisher. Furthermore, the body of the text contains citations to references that do not appear in the final list. For example: Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al. 2014 (line 93-94).

This is not a serious way to present a research paper. While it is true that an author may fall into the error of avoiding explanations because he or she is very familiar with their research, they cannot present a manuscript with continuous changes in text formatting, citations and references. All this as a whole generates a lack of understanding of the research, which despite being of quality, shows the opposite.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This reviewer want to thank the authors for the effort, the text has been improved from the original submission to the current version.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

We would like to thank you  again for time and comments!

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has improved substantially regarding both format and content. It is suggested that the next time you submit an article you pay more attention and love to your research in terms of the submitted manuscript. As assumed, the research background was consistent, but the presentation of the paper did not allow it to be transmitted.

The format of the references are now unified, however, it is not the one requested by the journal.

Example of Urban Science:

Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.

 

Example of the authors' paper:

Aries, M. B., Aarts, M. P., & van Hoof, J. (2015). Daylight and health: A review of the evidence and consequences for the built environment. Lighting Research & Technology, 47(1), 6-27.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

We deeply appreciate your constructive, invaluable and caring comments. We have certainly learned quite a lot from you, and we will carry your guidance to our next submission.

The manuscript has improved substantially regarding both format and content. It is suggested that the next time you submit an article you pay more attention and love to your research in terms of the submitted manuscript. As assumed, the research background was consistent, but the presentation of the paper did not allow it to be transmitted.

The format of the references are now unified, however, it is not the one requested by the journal.

Example of Urban Science:

Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.

Example of the authors' paper:

Aries, M. B., Aarts, M. P., & van Hoof, J. (2015). Daylight and health: A review of the evidence and consequences for the built environm

Response: We have adjusted the reference to comply with Urban Science requirement, and we will continue work with the editors if we missed anything.

 

Thanks,