A Novel Approach for Target Attraction and Obstacle Avoidance of a Mobile Robot in Unknown Environments Using a Customized Spiking Neural Network
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author
1 - The author need to add a more comparison section with other related works and must make comparison with other novel references by make table and will clear improve your algorithms .
2. The modification of algorithms which you are used is used for better optimization of features ?
3. Introduction paragraphs are poorly structured.
4. The authors are encouraged to re-write or re-organize these paragraphs highlighting challenges and novelties of the manuscript
I written comments in attachment,
you must do comments carefully
thanks
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
i write all modifications here in word file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article presents an innovative approach that employs a customized Spiking Neural Network (SNN) for the purpose of enabling autonomous learning and control of mobile robots in unfamiliar surroundings. The proposed model integrates spike-timing-dependent plasticity (STDP) with dopamine modulation as its learning algorithm. The research leverages the efficient and biologically plausible Izhikevich neuron model, which has the potential to foster the creation of control systems that are more closely aligned with biological principles and computationally efficient, enabling them to adapt to dynamic environments. The study assesses the model's performance within a simulated setting, using the Webots robotic environment simulator to accurately recreate real-world scenarios involving three obstacles.
This is an interesting work. However, I have some comments:
- Line 11: Authors state “This article proposes a unique approach that uses a…”. Please rewrite this sentence. Additionally, the size of the abstract should be reduced by concentrating on the main contributions. Indeed, the abstract needs to be improved to understand the summary of the work done highlighting the principal contributions.
- The introduction should be rewritten illustrating the main contributions. Indeed, Research Gaps identified from the Literature is to be written clearly. Please include more recent references in the introduction. In addition, the Literature Review section should be merged in the introduction. The figure 1 is not useful since it’s already explained in the main text.
- Lines 139-144: Again, a literature review?
- Figure 2: It’s not clear what type of obstacles are used (static or dynamic), please clarify this point.
- Section 3.2 Sensor Types and Specifications: The main specifications of the used sensors are not mentioned.
- Table1: it’s unclear how the parameters of RS neurons are chosen!
- The flowchart (fig4) needs more explanations.
- Line 265: Please avoid the use of ‘my study’
- Line 297: Please revise the title.
- Figure 6 is unreadable. I cannot understand the main flowchart based on this low-resolution figure
- The Conclusion should be rewritten by integrating the limitations and the perspective.
In conclusion, the whole paper should be rewritten illustrating the main contributions, more details in the used approaches, and more rigorous discussion of the obtained results.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English needs to be polished further. The manuscript should be formatted better and some spelling and grammar should be checked carefully.
Author Response
i modified all report in file word
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. In Figure 1 of the introduction part of the article, contribution, network, obstacle and other words are not displayed completely, and the spacing between the words in the picture is not the same. Please correct the above problems.
2. In Figure 3 of Article 3.3, the article 's logical description of Figure 3 is incomplete. The framework is finally combined with the Izhikevich Model. The model structure is only introduced later, and the logical block diagram is not introduced in detail. Please correct the above problems.
3. What is the specific meaning of the four parameters a, b, c and d of the model equation in Section 3.4 of the article, and what is the role of the system. Please the author to supplement the above problems.
4. In section 3.5 of the article, what is the meaning of j in line 11 of the pseudocode in Figure 5. Please the author to supplement the above problems.
5. In the description of the flow chart of Figure 6 in Section 4.2, the different uses of seconds and milliseconds expressed in Step 1 are not reflected in the flow chart. Please the author to supplement the above problems.
6. In the description of the flow chart of Fig.6 in Section 4.2, step 3, please explain in detail how to distinguish the obstacle detection distance and the degree of proximity to the target. Please the author to supplement the above problems.
7. In the research method of Chapter 3, it is proposed that navigation time is an important performance index. In Chapter 4, there is no experiment on the time when the mobile robot reaches the specified position. Please the author to supplement the above problems.
Our suggestion on this article is major revision.
Author Response
modification in word file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe comments and suggestions can be found in the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The English language should be revised with professional help to meet the requirements of an academic article.
Author Response
Modifications are all in word file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper studies a unique approach that uses a customized SNN to achieve AMR learning and control in unknown environments. This is a nice work that solves a practical problem by using neural network.
The paper is generally well organized, but the following issues should be addressed.
-The description of the innovation needs to be clearer. Authors are suggested to add a summary of the innovation in the introduction.
-The text in Figure 1 is incompletely displayed, and part of the text in Figure 2 is too small to be displayed clearly.
-Figure 5 shows “Pseudo code of SNN algorithm and STDP”, consider modifying the picture content into the form of a text table
-The authors are encouraged to clarify the parameter selection further.
-In section4.3, Figure 7~9 show the robot’s navigation and obstacle avoidance performance. These pictures are intuitive, but it is not conducive to evaluating the performance of the intermediate process of navigation and obstacle avoidance. Consider adding a graph similar to Figure 10 to display the control performance more clearly.
-This paper studies the practical applications of neural networks. Thus, authors are suggested to add a comparison with the following papers, e.g., “H. Sang, R. Jiang et al., A Novel Neural Multi-Store Memory Network for Autonomous Visual Navigation in Unknown Environment”, “C. Yang et al., Robot Learning System Based on Adaptive Neural Control and Dynamic Movement Primitives”, to enrich the background of the article.
Author Response
All changes are listed in the word document below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper addresses an interesting aspect of robotics.
I think the paper needs improvement in the following aspects:
*Figure 6 needs to be redone at a higher resolution, as it is not clear enough;
* Details should be given on the future implementation on a real autonomous robotic system
Author Response
All changes are listed in the word document below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been revised accordingly. No further comments
Author Response
Below is the review 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The 127th line of the introductory part of the article is a blank line, please delete it if it serves no particular purpose, and ask the authors to correct it for the above problem.
2. In the second and third paragraphs of section 2.3 of the article, note the formatting of the first line and ask the author to fix it to address the above issues.
Author Response
Below is the review 3
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Contribution generally are placed at the end of the introduction after discussing the current research problem.
2. The format of the figure and its subfigures in the whole paper are not unified. Some figures use (i)-(iv), some use (A)-(D). The most common format number is (a)-(b). The author should carefully check the normative style .
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is fine.
Author Response
Below is the review 4
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have taken on board suggestions and made improvements to the work. I agree with these improvements.
Author Response
Below is the review 6
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
