An Optimization Framework for Information Management in Adaptive Automotive Human–Machine Interfaces

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article proposes an optimization framework for Information management in adaptive automotive human machine interfaces for assisting the driver and processing the information. The work is interesting and has practical applications. However, there are some issues with the current manuscript that must be fixed in the revised manuscript. The authors must address and incorporate the following comments:

1.     The abstract is too lengthy, make it short and concise by omitting the already known information and facts.

2.     Although, the introduction is good, I cannot see distinct paragraphs which make it more a bit length and difficult to perceive.

3.     The proposed framework is using hypothetical case study for validation, and I cannot find any description of physical hardware and details of instrumentation for the practical implementation of the framework. Such details must be added to the revised manuscript.

4.     To solidify the contribution and innovative merits of the current work, the current result must be compared to the similar results from the published literature.

5.     The paper is way too lengthy; it must be reduced to an appropriate size by eliminating the already known and redundant information.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper focuses on an interesting subject - managing information as to minimize the information load on the driver. References are decent.

Here are some minor problems:

1. When referring to driver impairment, the authors don't coin the establish term used by everybody: PERCLOS. Deriving from here, the references regarding this aspect are of low quality.

2. The DVE about low visibility could take into account other reasons i.e. fog. Authors should also mention this.

Now, moving on to more serious aspects, I believe that this paper has a small degree of originality. The subject has been targeted before, here are some examples:

- Khan, I., & Khusro, S. (2020). Towards the design of context-aware adaptive user interfaces to minimize drivers’ distractions. Mobile Information Systems, 2020. - Birrell, S., Young, M., Stanton, N., & Jennings, P. (2017). Using adaptive interfaces to encourage smart driving and their effect on driver workload. In Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation: Proceedings of the AHFE 2016 International Conference on Human Factors in Transportation, July 27-31, 2016, Walt Disney World®, Florida, USA (pp. 31-43). Springer International Publishing. - Bischoff, D. (2007). Developing guidelines for managing driver workload and distraction associated with telematic devices. SAE Paper, (07-0082).

The proposed framework is not adaptive, nor truly intelligent (context-aware). The binary options for DVEs seem subjectively chosen.

English is fine.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The presented problem is worth investigating. The Authors construct the intriguing method after the presentation of today’s “state of the art”. Some aspects of the study should be improved before publication. 

Implementation of the optimization framework is not presented in the real system. Data and assumptions are theoretical only. So the results and their interpretation have only a theoretical aspect. This decreases the scientific soundness of the study. More interesting and worthwhile would be a confrontation of this method with real data. Such a way can be acceptable (however with decreasing the scientific soundness) but should be distinctly highlighted in the manuscript, especially in the abstract, introduction, and conclusions.

The aspect of potential application is not satisfactorily realized. I suggest adding (as a supplement) the tool allowing the reader the use and check the presented methodology. For example in the form of a code or pseudocode.

Results are not confronted with the findings presented in the introduction (references). I suggest adding the section “discussion” (before conclusions) highlighting the impact of the results, the limitations, differences according to the former studies, next steps, etc.

I also identified some technical problems to correct.

The text in the introduction should be divided into paragraphs. The present form is hard to follow.

All paragraphs should be started with the indents.

Tables shouldn’t be parts of paragraphs (tables 2, 5, 6, and 7 for example). The same remark refers to the figures (2, 3, 4 for example).

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed and incorporated all my suggestions in the revised manuscript which has improved the overall quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for improving the paper and addressing my concerns. I find the paper ready to be published.

Reviewer 3 Report

I state that all of my remarks were satisfactorily considered. Particularly valuable is the addition of pseudocode implementing the proposed optimization method (in attachment) which increases the usefulness of this study. Now, in my opinion,  this manuscript is ready for publishing.