Effects of Audio–Visual Interaction on Physio-Psychological Recovery of Older Adults in Residential Public Space

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed work addresses the important and topical problem of designing public space for the elderly, with recognition of the impact of audiovisual interaction. After reading the article, it is difficult to see the novelty of the results of the conducted research. However, this does not mean that the article is not worth attention. Its structure is generally correct. The research was well conducted (a detailed methodological description is noteworthy), and the results were discussed. Research limitations were also addressed. Finally, conclusions are presented. However, I think that for a better perception of the article it is important to reformulate the aim of the research. Currently, it is expressed in lines 110-119. In my opinion, the research should be directed at identifying the determinants of the therapeutic impact of public space on the elderly. It would be good to formulate research questions and research hypotheses and then refer to them in the discussion. The research questions are referred to by the authors in line 407 (discussion), but I had not noticed them before. Similarly, there are references to hypotheses in the discussion (e.g., in verse 442). As a result, the discussion is a bit chaotic in my opinion. The paper also doesn't include a typical literature review. Although there are references to selected publications in the introduction, I think the literature review should be developed further. Among other publications, I suggest referring to Carles J.L., Barrio I.L., De Lucio J.V., 1999: Sound Influence on Landscape Values. Landscape and Urban Planning 43, 4: 191-200 and Preis A., Kociński J., Hafke-Dys H., Wrzosek M.,2015: Audio-visual interactions in environment assessment, Science of The Total Environment, 523: 191-200. In addition, my doubts are raised by the representativeness of the study group. In terms of gender, there are clear disparities. This needs to be clarified. More clarification is also required, in my opinion, by the statement in lines 509-510: "Potential limitations of this study are related to the participants and experiment setting".I also wonder how a specific cultural circle affects the reactions of the participants in the experiment?

After taking into account the comments made above, I think the article can be published.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

it's an interesting challenge in the development, especially for the current/expected population structure in China.

Study design seems reasonable with detailed eligibility criteria with rationales. Exposure type and exposure amounts are well explained. However, below are some limitations that need to be addressed or discussed:   Foremost: there are 3 measurement points: baseline, pre-test (after oral calculation), post-test (after study exposure). Comparing post-test to pre-test doesn't support the study objective, because pre-test values are elevated values from baseline due to the "oral calculation" session. It is not clear to me why this stress-induction period is needed to explore the study objective, other than to worsen pre-test numbers.
1. statement needs citation in introduction section: "urban aging populations have been widely shown to face serious physical and mental health problems". 2. the term: crossed effects. Do you mean potential synergy? 3. Exposure order matters. Washout period between sessions matters, if the exposure is given repeated to a subject for 3-4 times. It is a very typical cross-over design, but I do not see statistical analysis considering the carry-over effect from the previous session. We can either list it as a limitation, or test for carry-over effects. Also, the effect of re-challenge by oral calculation needs to be quantified in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th session of a subject. 4. Do we know if that immediate-after-exposure effect is long-lasting? I think it is important to figure out the extent of exposure (frequency, exposure duration, etc.) that can help with long term effects. Short term effect is not particularly interesting from a public health perspective. 5. it is nice that the authors detailed blood pressure measurement scene. Are multiple measurements taken and mean value reported? 6. Figure 3 last box: ROS instead of POS, a typo? 7. Under Table 2, footnotes needed for MAP, HR, PA, NA.   Thanks.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled “Effects of Audio-visual interaction on physio-psychological recovery of older adults in residential public space” presents an interesting research which fits to the scope of the journal. I want to highlight that I agree with the authors that the high interest in landscape research while ignoring soundscape aspects is an important gap of knowledge in the current state of art both at the theoretical and practical level. Adopting the perspective of the most sensitive part of society, represented by older adults, fits into the idea of ​​creating universal cities, designed for everyone.

However, there are some points which should be revised before publication. Below I present comments which should be considered while improving the paper.

11. Figure 1, Table 1 and Figure 3 are prepared in text editor and exported with white marks turned on. Please remove them.

22. Figure 5-7: please improve the quality of these charts to increase their readability.

33. Section 4.3. Implications for planning and design: while mentioning directions of urban space redesign I suggest to elaborate more on studies analyzing these issues, as just the fact of urban park existence itself may not be a factor guaranteeing similar positive impact on the quality of life. Please see for instance: Redefinition of Park Design Criteria as a Result of Analysis of Well-Being and Soundscape: The Case Study of the Kortowo Park (Poland). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2972; or other papers in that topic.

44. In the introduction there is a clear division between urban greenery and residential land use (“(…) most existing studies linking greenspace and restoration focused on the comparison between common urban and nature areas, far too little attention has been paid to the restorative environments in residential contexts”). Personally, I am not convinced that such strict division is a correct approach, especially taking into account possibility of multi-functional approach in urban planning. I guess that my point of view is confirmed in this paper at the stage of defining implications of this research (“(…) green parks should be a priority in the planning of residential public space (…)”). Based on that point of view these elements should not be treated separately. Therefore, I suggest to rewrite the part of introduction and avoid exclusion of urban greenery from residential areas.

55. The number of obtained ethical approval should be added to the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf