Immersive Methods and Biometric Tools in Food Science and Consumer Behavior

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is interesting and relevant.
I suggest some changes to improve it:
- Cite examples of the application of each of the methodologies, demonstrating limitations and scope in a concrete way.
- There are some redundancies throughout the text. Please review to make it more fluid and concise.
- There is a high rate of self-citation by the authors.
- Currently, there is great concern about data privacy. Aspects related to this topic could have been addressed in this manuscript.
- There is no indication of methodological limitations in the reviewed literature, nor a critical evaluation of current shortcomings in the use of biometrics applied to sensory science.

Author Response

We thank Reviewer 1 for the constructive comments. We revised the manuscript to add concrete applications with scope and limitations, remove redundancy, address data privacy, and expand the limitations discussion for biometrics and immersive-biometrics integration.

Comment:
Cite examples of the application of each of the methodologies, demonstrating limitations and scope in a concrete way.
Response:
Concrete food-related examples were added or made explicit across the method descriptions and application sections, including VR use in food product evaluation and retail contexts (lines 120–125 and 445–454), eye tracking for packaging and food label attention and mobile eye tracking in natural settings (lines 177–180), EEG for cognitive and affective processing in food contexts with a stated interpretation limitation (lines 219–226), GSR for emotional arousal and cognitive load in food-related stimuli (lines 186–191), and fNIRS use for food perception and decision-making with stated constraints and advantages in realistic settings (lines 233–240). These passages also state scope and limitations where appropriate.

Comment:
There are some redundancies throughout the text. Please review to make it more fluid and concise.
Response:
Redundancy was reduced by consolidating repeated background explanations and rewriting into longer, thematically coherent paragraphs, especially in the early framing and definitions (lines 15–22 and 40–48) and in the structured definitions of sensory and consumer science (lines 50–56). This also supports the requested entry style.

Comment:
There is a high rate of self-citation by the authors.
Response:
We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern. We carefully reviewed all self-citations and retained them only where they provide method-specific evidence directly related to virtual reality applications in sensory analysis, which is still a relatively narrow research area with a limited number of dedicated research groups. Where a self-citation was not essential for supporting a specific technical point, it was removed or the surrounding text was rewritten to rely on other references already included in the manuscript. This revision is reflected in the References section and corresponding in-text citations (lines 801–1169).

Comment:
Currently, there is great concern about data privacy. Aspects related to this topic could have been addressed in this manuscript.
Response:
A dedicated data privacy and ethics discussion was added, including anonymisation, secure storage, and explicit GDPR compliance language (lines 671–676, including the GDPR statement at lines 672–673).

Comment:
There is no indication of methodological limitations in the reviewed literature, nor a critical evaluation of current shortcomings in the use of biometrics applied to sensory science.
Response:
A focused limitations subsection was added that critically discusses current shortcomings, including equipment cost, technical complexity, specialist expertise needs, multisensory fidelity constraints, and implications for ecological validity in taste and texture contexts (lines 636–658).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is highly relevant and has strong potential for publication. Here is the minor revision I will recommend:

1-Increase critical analysis when comparing immersive and biometric tools (strengths and weaknesses of each method).

2-Biometric tools are well covered, but the immersive technology section receives disproportionate space. A more balanced approach would improve the review.

3-Stronger transitions between sections might be of high interest to increase the fluency of the paper

Author Response

We thank Reviewer 2 for the positive assessment and the targeted minor-revision suggestions. We revised the manuscript to strengthen critical comparison, improve balance between immersive and biometric content, and improve section-to-section flow.

Comment:
Increase critical analysis when comparing immersive and biometric tools (strengths and weaknesses of each method).
Response:
A comparative advantages and limitations discussion was expanded in the dedicated section, explicitly presenting benefits and constraints of immersive and biometric approaches as an integrated methodological framework (lines 604–606 and the structured Advantages and Limitations content at lines 608–660).

Comment:
Biometric tools are well covered, but the immersive technology section receives disproportionate space. A more balanced approach would improve the review.
Response:
Balance is addressed by clearly structuring immersive methods as one block (Immersive Methods at lines 100–157) and biometric tools as a parallel block with multiple tool-specific subsections (Biometric Tools at lines 160–240, continuing through the biometric subsections that begin at lines 171, 183, 217, and 230). This presentation ensures comparable methodological treatment across both domains.

Comment:
Stronger transitions between sections might be of high interest to increase the fluency of the paper.
Response:
Bridging text was added to connect immersive approaches to biometric measurement logic, explicitly framing biometrics as the objective counterpart that complements immersive context manipulation (lines 163–169).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The entry (encyclopedia-4003153) presents immersive and biometric methods used in food science and to verify consumer behavior, providing reliable, repeatable evidence on what attracts attention, creates value, and influences food choices. This is a very important topic, and I appreciate the creation of such an article.

At the same time, as a "reader," I miss a more continuous line of thought throughout the article. The manuscript should be technically better prepared by creating longer, thematically related paragraphs, avoiding starting each sentence on a new line.

Furthermore, according to the definition of "Entry," these are brief, factual articles on various scientific topics. And this aspect—short and to the point—is lacking. There is too much general and frequently repeated information, and too little specificity and examples, given the current title of the work.

The article requires reflection and consideration of the content and its rewording. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to write more about the methods and provide more examples specifically related to food and consumer behavior, taking into account the methods described.

Furthermore, I suggest considering the merits of maintaining a separate subsection, "Historical Development." I suggest including some information in the "Introduction," as the "evolution" of methods is more of a background to the work than a goal.

I would also like to request a one-time indication in the text of the meaning of the phrase "ecological validity."

In my opinion, the current content of the work requires thorough proofreading before being considered for publication, including organizing repeated passages, shortening the text, and reviewing the English language; it could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Corrections and suggestions are indicated directly in the draft manuscript.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language revision is needed, it can be improved to express the research more clearly.

Author Response

We thank Reviewer 3 for the detailed reader-focused critique. We revised the manuscript to improve continuity of argument, reduce overly general repetition, increase food- and consumer-specific examples, clarify terminology, and improve overall presentation in line with the Encyclopedia entry format.

Comment:
I miss a more continuous line of thought throughout the article, and the manuscript should be better prepared by creating longer, thematically related paragraphs rather than starting each sentence on a new line.
Response:
The early framing and core definitions were rewritten into continuous paragraphs to establish a clearer through-line and improve readability (lines 15–22 and 40–48), and the entry’s definitional foundations were consolidated into coherent blocks (lines 50–56).

Comment:
There is too much general and frequently repeated information, and too little specificity and examples.
Response:
Specificity was increased by adding explicit food-related examples across key methods and applications, including VR supermarket and retail behaviour use cases (lines 445–454), packaging and food label attention via eye tracking (lines 177–180), and neurophysiological tools with stated context and constraints (EEG at lines 219–226 and fNIRS at lines 233–240).

Comment:
It would be worthwhile to write more about the methods and provide more examples specifically related to food and consumer behavior.
Response:
Method sections now explicitly anchor each tool in food and consumer behaviour use, including food-related stimuli in GSR (lines 186–191), food perception and decision-making in EEG (lines 219–223), and food perception and preference decision-making in fNIRS (lines 233–235), alongside retail and menu design examples in immersive applications (lines 440–454).

Comment:
Consider the merits of maintaining a separate subsection “Historical Development” and include evolution information in the Introduction.
Response:
Historical evolution is now stated in the Introduction to frame the entry’s scope (line 45). A concise Historical Development section remains to preserve a brief background pathway for readers while keeping it short and factual (lines 258–321).

Comment:
Indicate the meaning of the phrase “ecological validity.”
Response:
The term is defined at first use as ecological validity meaning realism of conditions (line 18).

Comment:
The work requires thorough proofreading and language improvement, including organizing repeated passages and shortening the text.
Response:
The manuscript was edited and is being proofread by a native speaker for clarity, concision, and consistency with entry style, including tighter phrasing in the opening framing and definitions (e.g., lines 15–22 and 40–48) and removal or consolidation of repeated explanations in core definitional passages (e.g., lines 50–56).

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for incorporating my proposed changes and suggestions into the manuscript. In its current form, the article can be accepted for further processing. However, a few suggested changes in the comments in the PDF file, concerning substantive issues—such as the terms and definitions used—have not been changed, which I understand is the intentional and responsible action of the Authors.