Contributions of Temporal Modulation Cues in Temporal Amplitude Envelope of Speech to Urgency Perception

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with an interesting topic, however I think it needs a deep refinement.

Please reduce a little bit more the abstract.

Please clarify the main contribution.

Please make a deeper state-of-the-art, and clarify if there are some efforts to solve the problem and compare with respect to the state-of-the-art proposed methods.

If there exist proposed methods, in section of results also present a comparison. If not, please justify your contribution.

Author Response

Please find the author response in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors seem to provide convincing experiments validating the claims stated in the introduction. Still, as I am not from the same research field, I cannot assess whether the research topic is enjoyable or whether the methodology for setting up the experiments was held per the area's expectations. Furthermore, it seems that the experiments were conducted with real people, which makes sense since the authors provide a study that aims to test the response to human physiology. Still, I cannot determine whether doing some double-blind studies would have been adequate to assess the feasibility of the study.

Author Response

Please find the author response in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments

The manuscript reports about a study that was carried out to investigate the possible role of temporal amplitude envelopes in the perception of urgency by speech. The findings can be of particular interest for, e.g., the development of speech processing algorithms for cochlear implant users.

The technical level and quality of the manuscript is high. It is well organized and reads well.

Detailed comments

* Section 3.3 Procedure: Give a brief description of Scheffe´s paired comparison method or at least a reference.

* Section 4.5 Consideration: The second and fourth sentence seem redundant. Delete one of them. (2nd sentence: "A comparison of pairs of the same urgency level (e.g., a and A) indicated that the degrees of urgency of the noise-vocoded stimuli are higher than those of the original stimuli."
4th sentence: "We found that the degrees of urgency of the original stimuli were lower than those of the noise-vocoded stimuli when the same stimulus pair of the same urgency level (e.g., A and a) was compared."

* Lines 204/205: "the TAE of the original stimuli was preserved" -> were preserved

* Table 1: Units of sharpness are missing

* Section 5. Experiment III: ..., first sentence: a word (or some words) seems to be missing between "TAE of" and " functions".

* Section 5.4 Results: 2nd sentence (Line 244): I don't understand the meaning of "the ordering of the degrees of urgency". Why "the ordering of" and not just "the degrees of urgency"? (Same once more in line 255)

* Same section, line 257/258: " No significant cut-off frequency differences were observed" . This expression is misleading or hard to understand. I guess you didn't mean differences between cut-off frequencies, but differences between degrees of urgencies.

* The same applies to Section 5.5. Consideration, lines 267/268 and 270.: "difference between the cut-off frequencies of 8 and 12 Hz" -> "difference between the degrees of urgency at cut-off frequencies of 8 and 12 Hz"

 

 

 

Author Response

Please find the author response in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Please see attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find the author response in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf