Next Article in Journal
Stochastic Neural Networks for Automatic Cell Tracking in Microscopy Image Sequences of Bacterial Colonies
Next Article in Special Issue
Variable Decomposition for Large-Scale Constrained Optimization Problems Using a Grouping Genetic Algorithm
Previous Article in Journal
On Appearance of Fast or Late Self-Synchronization between Non-Ideal Sources Mounted on a Rectangular Plate Due to Time Delay
Previous Article in Special Issue
AutoML for Feature Selection and Model Tuning Applied to Fault Severity Diagnosis in Spur Gearboxes
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Attention Measurement of an Autism Spectrum Disorder User Using EEG Signals: A Case Study

Math. Comput. Appl. 2022, 27(2), 21; https://doi.org/10.3390/mca27020021
by José Jaime Esqueda-Elizondo 1,2, Reyes Juárez-Ramírez 2, Oscar Roberto López-Bonilla 1, Enrique Efrén García-Guerrero 1, Gilberto Manuel Galindo-Aldana 3, Laura Jiménez-Beristáin 2, Alejandra Serrano-Trujillo 2, Esteban Tlelo-Cuautle 4 and Everardo Inzunza-González 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Math. Comput. Appl. 2022, 27(2), 21; https://doi.org/10.3390/mca27020021
Submission received: 30 December 2021 / Revised: 23 February 2022 / Accepted: 24 February 2022 / Published: 2 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Numerical and Evolutionary Optimization 2021)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study, attention was measured for ASD using EEG signals. The main theme of the work is good. That's why I like the idea. But there are some shortcomings. These are below:

  • How many observations does the dataset contain?
  • Since it is a case study, only one subject was taken into account. Can the number of subjects be increased? 
  • A classification method is proposed in the study. But with little data, is this classification satisfactory?

I like this work. Purpose is good. But a little more detail about the data should be shared. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This papers is about Attention Measurement of an Autism Spectrum Disorder User using EEG Signals: A case study. my comments are as follows:
1. The abstract section need to edit. 
2. The introduction section is not well organized and needs to be rewritten. The authors should add the important artificial intelligence methods in the introduction section. In this section, the important methods should be mentioned (advantages and disadvantages), and they should be compared with the proposed method. 
3. The literature review section should be edited. The literature review is not comprehensive. It is better to have a tabular summary of the paper's review to give readers a better understanding of the research done in this field. In this section, some articles should be presented in the form of text, and the rest of the articles should be summarized in the table with this information (Works, Dataset, preprocessing, main methods, Performance (%)). Also, In the Frist paragraph of this section, Please explain more about deep learning methods for medical applications. I recommended some important references as follows:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104949
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2021.103417
https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2021.777977
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104697 
4. The research question(s) need to appear stronger and clearer.
5. Please clarify your initial hypothesis.
6. Please summarize the "Performance Metrics" in a table. 
7. In discussions you need to critically discuss your work/results against your hypothesis. 
8. Identify the main findings and justify the novelty and contribution of the work.
9. A recap of all the relevant parameters with their meaning should be added to help the reader.
10.  Please highlight the clinical significance of your findings. 
11. Please add a section about "limitation of study". 
12. In the Conclusion section, please explain more about future works. This section requires further discussion.. For example, you can discuss about new deep learning methods.  
13. Please add a table in conclusion and compare your proposed method with another related works. 
14. English language is acceptable in general, but there are some errors that should be corrected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your answers. Enough for me. My recommendation is to accept.

Reviewer 2 Report

My suggestion is to accept this article.

Back to TopTop