Ranking Crossing Scenario Complexity for eHMIs Testing: A Virtual Reality Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well-written, and the proposed study provides valuable outcomes. However, something is misleading. Even in the title, the authors refer to the study as suitable to test eHMIs, but this topic appears in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion only. Within the test, no specific eHMIs are presented and evaluated, and the authors' correlation in the conclusion section refers to future studies. I suggest focusing on this point by including more reflections in the discussion section to highlight how the results can be effectively used for eHMIs evaluation.  

In the following some typos identified in the text [row]:

[70] can lead to’

[402] “Dara analysis consisted of two stages” appears twice

[639] subjective and subjective? measures

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

        you have presented a study of virtual reality in crossing scenarios. Different weather and visibility conditions are considered. Overall, the paper is well-written and nicely structured.

The reviewer has some minor suggestions:

1. Please consider analyzing the gap between your study and real-world usage.

2. How would your approach scale to other application scenarios and domains? Please consider discussing this.

3. Please enrich the captions of the figures to help the readers better understand the figures.

4. How about virtual reality systems for helping visually impaired people, which is also relevant? Please consider discussing them. [*] "A Mixed Reality Guidance System for Blind and Visually Impaired People." VRW, 2022.  [*] "HIDA: Towards holistic indoor understanding for the visually impaired via semantic instance segmentation with a wearable solid-state LiDAR sensor." ICCVW, 2021.

For these reasons, a minor revision is recommended before this paper can be considered for publication.

Sincerely,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Couple parts of the manuscript could to be improved. In general, manuscript is interesting and well-written.

- I would recommend to exclude "experimental procedure" as a separate section, i.e. Section 3. 

- Conclusions should be slightly improved. While taking into consideration academic language, it is not recommended to use figures in the conclusions. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf