An Electroglottograph Auxiliary Neural Network for Target Speaker Extraction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper suggests anew method for speech extraction. The paper has some methods that solve the issues of poor performance with the same gender.
I think that this paper has great presentation of the idea.
I just suggest that:
1-The authors should make the text in the figures readable
2-Make the font bigger
3- All figures should be clearer
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The standard of English in this manuscript is unacceptable. It is very difficult to read, to the extent that I'm not sure what has been done.
I have attached a version of the manuscript where passages which must be improved are highlighted. There are also comments as appropriate. It's going to be necessary to find a native speaker of English to proof read this.
The topic is separating the speech of an individual from a mixture of 2 talkers (I think!). Results previously reported by others are improved by adding a laryngograph (EGG) signal for the same utterance (I think!). This seems to me to amount to using F0 as a grouping tool to identify spectro-temporal areas dominated by the target speaker (the 'mask'). All this is well known and was the subject of a series of papers in the 1990s: see Barker, Cooke nd Ellis 2000
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors proposed an EGG_Auxiliary Network to train the speech extraction model.
Generally speaking, the problem proposed in this paper is interesting, and the obtained results are promising and correct. The references in this paper are appropriate and most of the references cited by the author are recent ones. It is enough to support the research in this paper. Nevertheless, there are some problems that should be addressed.
The authors mixed the Introduction section and literature review section of the paper. Authors are suggested to write both sections separately.
The introduction section should have the background of the topic, advantages, and disadvantages of the topic, area of the problem, discussion on the research problem, existing solutions and their constraints, brief on the methodology for the solution of the problem, aims and objectives, and motivation of the study.
The discussion section is very short. Please discuss the results in detail.
The results are not discussed in the conclusion section of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the work you've put into revising this manuscript but I'm afraid that the English is still unacceptable. I'm attaching a marked up version which only covers the introduction. It shows that there are still passages and phrases which don't make sense. As I said before, this must be proof-read by a native English speaker: you cannot expect a reviewer to do that job for you.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have incorporated partial comments of the undersigned and take it as fatigue.
Please look at your introduction section, it is too short and you did this delibrately just to complet the formality.
The introduction section has so many components / parts components and in your section, all these parts are missing.
See the structure of the paper is given in the last paragraph of the Section 2, is it OK?
You just splitted the introduction section into introdcution and background section and nothing else.
Both sections have seperate things.
I am really disappointed to see this thing.
We are reviewers of the papers to make your paper more appropriate and comprehensive but authors have to take our comments in a positive direction.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have improved the article by incorporating my comments.
Thanks to the authors to understand my point of view.
