Visual Perception Differences and Spatiotemporal Analysis in Commercialized Historic Streets Based on Mobile Eye Tracking: A Case Study in Nanchang Wanshou Palace, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsArticle title:
Demographic Differences and Spatiotemporal Analysis of Visual Perception in Commercialized Historic Streets Based on Mobile Eye Tracking
Review:
This article employs a specific methodology to understand the visual perception characteristics and spatiotemporal dynamics of commercialized historic streets (line 18). Repetitions of sentences in the abstract need to be avoided (see lines 5-7 and lines 17-18). What do the authors mean by spatiotemporal dynamics? Which part of the manuscript explains these spatiotemporal dynamics concepts?
There is inconsistency in how the data can represent the place stated in the title. While in the title, the location is explicitly written as “commercialized historic streets”. In the method section (line 237) there is only one location for experimentation: Nanjing Wanshou Palace Historic and Cultural District. How can the authors generalize one location as commercialized historic streets?
(line 276 – 282)
Three groups of participants were selected for this study, each comprising three individuals. One group had a background in architecture-related fields, possessing certain architectural knowledge and professional literacy, enabling them to understand and analyze the characteristics of commercialized historic streets from a professional perspective. The other two groups consisted of individuals with partial architectural knowledge and no architectural background, representing the general public and providing an objective reflection of the visual cognition and experience of the commercialized historic streets among the general population.
The idiom “demographic differences” in the title is not articulated in the method clearly. The common understanding in statistical analysis, demographic differences commonly refer to age, gender, income level, marital status, ethnic origin, and education level. In this manuscript, the participants were divided into 3 groups, as shown in Figure 7 (lines 276 - 282). Perhaps, the authors need to find other words or idioms to articulate and justify the categorizations of participants for the title.
(line 237-245)
(1) Site Selection: The experiment selected the Nanjing Wanshou Palace Historic and Cultural District, characterized by its typicality and representativeness, as the experimental site. This area successfully integrates traditional elements with modern commercial models, forming an attractive commercialized historic street. (2) Data Collection: Participants were divided into three groups based on their familiarity with the commercialized historic streets. Each group wore the Tobii Glasses 2 head-mounted eye tracker and freely roamed the streets, with eye movement data collected using infrared light reflection technology.
How many participants are part of this experimentation? How are they selected as participants? What is the interview result? How are these interviews interpreted as study results? Why is there no qualitative data included in this manuscript?
(line 487-489) In conclusion, the findings of this study are of significant importance for understanding the visual appeal of commercialized historic streets and their relationship with individual knowledge backgrounds and interests.
This may be true, however, one location as a place of experiment and the number of participants may not create generalizations as wide-ranging as it is.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
To the reviewer:
Thank you for your valuable comments. After careful consideration and revision, we have attached our point-by-point response and the revised manuscript in the PDF below. Thank you once again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview of the article entitled “Demographic Differences and Spatiotemporal Analysis of Visual Perception in Commercialized Historic Streets Based on Mobile Eye Tracking” submitted to the journal MDPI Buildings. The article utilizes mobile eye-tracking technology to understand the differences in the visual perception characteristics of diverse demographics within the commercialized and historic streets and attempts to offer new insights for both urban planners and urban cultural heritage conservation. In particular, the research tries to understand how individuals with different levels of architectural knowledge experience and interact with these environments. Overall, I believe, the manuscript is of high value to the journal readership and the topic is suitable for publication. It was a joy to read. However, it contains many minor errors, which need to be addressed before acceptance.
Minor remarks on the submitted manuscript include:
1. Please mention the location of the study in the abstract.
2. Please mention more results in a quantifiable way in the abstract.
3. Historic Streets should not be capitalized. Please check the entire document.
4. Minor English editing is required to better connect sentences.
5. Line 35-38. Provide references to some of these recent studies.
6. Error reference 8 in pdf.
7. Please define the abbreviation VR as virtual reality at first mention.
8. Line 80 again please cite these studies.
9. Lines 81-83 which studies.
10. Line 83-84. Please reference this bold statement. Is it assumed or have past studies found this?
11. Please do not call this paper or manuscript “a document”. Line 107.
12. Line 135 citation error.
13. Lines 136-152. Where else has the technology been used? Please add further studies in the section.
14. Line 241. How did you assess each participant's familiarity with the case study street? Please explain more.
15. Since when has the Wanshou Palace Historic and Cultural District been protected? How is it designated? What level of protection is offered? How is it managed? How can your results support its management?
16. Line 277. What are architecture-related fields? Please be clearer.
17. Line 277-285 How was the level of architectural knowledge assessed? Self-reported?
18. Line 291 you say participants followed an assigned route. Previously you mentioned participants were free to roam (line 243). Which was it? Please clarify in the text. Did they solely walk along Qiao Bu Street?
19. Lined 293 use past tense.
20. Did all participants undertake the experiments at the same time of day?
21. How many participants took part in the experiment?
22. Please try not to present the results with so many decimal points. Keep it simple for readability and to avoid a sense of false precision. i.e. 25.7% instead of 25.72%
23. Please provide a section that discusses the limitations of this study. i.e. small sample size, regional scope, temporal factors/ time of day may affect the results as well as weather. It is also unclear how well-informed the participants were about the aim of the study. this may have influenced the results. Other sensory experiences may also influence the results. i.e. sound, other walkers, and moving traffic.
24. Please discuss what future research studies should address.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor improvements in grammar, tense, and word choice are needed.
Author Response
To the reviewer:
Thank you for your valuable comments. After thorough consideration and revisions, we have attached a point-by-point response along with the revised manuscript in the PDF below. Thank you once again for your insights.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
