The Design and Development of a Foot-Detection Approach Based on Seven-Foot Dimensions: A Case Study of a Virtual Try-On Shoe System Using Augmented Reality Techniques

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, the authors introduce the seven-foot dimensions model in order to measure foot shapes and sizes. They use LiDAR, a real-time signal based on light detection and ranging sensor to identify the foot shapes and sizes based on the proposed model. Moreover, they organized an experiment, where they evaluated the proposed approach and compared it, in the same time, with the  traditional technique. The results show that the proposed approach achieved higher effectiveness than the traditional technique.

The paper is well organized, very interesting and introduce a remarkable idea. I believe that it is ready for publication. The only comment for improvement that I would like to make is that in line 165, the authors use the term “point clouds” without introduced it before.

Author Response

Anonymous reviewer #1

In this paper, the authors introduce the seven-foot dimensions model in order to measure foot shapes and sizes. They use LiDAR, a real-time signal based on light detection and ranging sensor to identify the foot shapes and sizes based on the proposed model. Moreover, they organized an experiment, where they evaluated the proposed approach and compared it, in the same time, with the traditional technique. The results show that the proposed approach achieved higher effectiveness than the traditional technique.

The paper is well organized, very interesting and introduce a remarkable idea. I believe that it is ready for publication. The only comment for improvement that I would like to make is that in line 165, the authors use the term “point clouds” without introduced it before.

Authors' reply:

Thank you for pointing this out. We have carefully evaluated this suggestion and found that this may come from our unclear than intended. The term “point clouds” is the relevant feature for feet detection. We then revised those unclear sentences to “Dimension transformation extracts relevant features called a set of point clouds according to the object's surface. Feet identification employs point clouds to connect their relationships and draw shape and size towards natural feet from the environment.”. Please see page 4 in line 164-165.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This review is for the article “The design and development of a feet detection approach based on seven-foot dimensions: a case study of a virtual try-on 3 shoe system using Augmented Reality technique". This study aims for a foot-detection approach using expert-like measurements. It combines the seven-foot dimensions model and the light detection and ranging sensor to encode foot shapes and sizes and detect the dimension surfaces.

After reviewing the article, I would like to organize my response around two central ideas: 1) the article's structure and 2) comments that I hope the authors consider for improving their work.

 

 

 1) Structure:  

 

+After reading the literature review section, I suggest summarizing the key points of the literature review presented and their relationship with the proposed research.

 

+ Line 324, I believe there is a typo. It should be Metrics.

 

2) General comments:

 

+ The work is interesting, and it's well presented. Nevertheless, I have found some weaknesses in the last sections. I believe the work and study will benefice if the authors add the following:

 

+ A procedure section: where the whole procedure is explained step by step. The conditions in which the experiment was done are essential for the study's replicability. Also, with the procedure, it will be clear how the metrics were obtained.

 

+ Limitations of the study: Even though authors draw some limitations in the conclusions, a subsection will put emphasis on this dimension.

 

About the results:

+ Is there any difference between males and females? 

+ do you have the ages? M and SD?

+ With the number of the sample, some t-test could be performed to support your conclusions (it can also be presented as a feasibility test)

 

Thanks for the present work, and I hope you find these comments useful to improve the current manuscript.

 

+ Line 324, I believe there is a typo. It should be Metrics.

 

Author Response

This review is for the article “The design and development of a feet detection approach based on seven-foot dimensions: a case study of a virtual try-on 3 shoe system using Augmented Reality technique". This study aims for a foot-detection approach using expert-like measurements. It combines the seven-foot dimensions model and the light detection and ranging sensor to encode foot shapes and sizes and detect the dimension surfaces.

After reviewing the article, I would like to organize my response around two central ideas: 1) the article's structure and 2) comments that I hope the authors consider for improving their work.

1. Structure:

1.1 After reading the literature review section, I suggest summarizing the key points of the literature review presented and their relationship with the proposed research.

Authors' reply:

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion; however, we did our best to summarize the key points and research gaps of the topic and conclude the main point of the literature review. Please see pages 3-4 in lines 118-123 and 141-150.

1.2 Structure: Line 324, I believe there is a typo. It should be Metrics.

Authors' reply:

Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the text to address your concerns.

 

2. General comments:

2.1 The work is interesting, and it's well presented. Nevertheless, I have found some weaknesses in the last sections. I believe the work and study will benefice if the authors add the following:

- A procedure section: where the whole procedure is explained step by step. The conditions in which the experiment was done are essential for the study's replicability. Also, with the procedure, it will be clear how the metrics were obtained.

- Limitations of the study: Even though authors draw some limitations in the conclusions, a subsection will put emphasis on this dimension.

Authors' reply:

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion. After we carefully read the point, we then add more detail about limitations and future works as detailed in the last paragraph in section 6. Conclusions. Please see page 13.

 

2.2 About the results

- Is there any difference between males and females?

- do you have the ages? M and SD?

- With the number of the sample, some t-test could be performed to support your conclusions (it can also be presented as a feasibility test)

Authors' reply:

We agree with this thoughtful suggestion that a feasibility test might help to support conclusions. After we have carefully evaluated our sample data, it shows that there is a slightly different between males and females. We valued this helpful suggestion by adding more details about data descriptions as detailed in section 5.2 Data Set Description. Please see page 11.

 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This article is highly captivating, with a precise approach and methodology. The application of Augmented Reality (AR) in the medical field, particularly for detecting foot anatomy, is extensively discussed in this article. The authors employ a systematic and rigorous approach to investigate the potential of AR technology in enhancing medical imaging and diagnostic processes related to the foot.

In conclusion, this article serves as an exemplary contribution to the field of AR applications in healthcare. The meticulous methodology, comprehensive data analysis, and insightful discussions make it a valuable resource for researchers, practitioners, and educators alike. The article merits publication in a this journal.

Author Response

This article is highly captivating, with a precise approach and methodology. The application of Augmented Reality (AR) in the medical field, particularly for detecting foot anatomy, is extensively discussed in this article. The authors employ a systematic and rigorous approach to investigate the potential of AR technology in enhancing medical imaging and diagnostic processes related to the foot.

In conclusion, this article serves as an exemplary contribution to the field of AR applications in healthcare. The meticulous methodology, comprehensive data analysis, and insightful discussions make it a valuable resource for researchers, practitioners, and educators alike. The article merits publication in a this journal.

Authors' reply:

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's comment. We appreciate the time and effort that the reviewer has dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

 

Thanks the second version of your article. Some points have been addressed. Nevertheless, I have found some weaknesses in the last sections. I believe the work and study will benefit if the authors add the following:

 

- A procedure section: where the whole procedure is explained step by step. The conditions in which the experiment was done are essential for the study's replicability. Also, with the procedure, it will be clear how the metrics were obtained.

 

- if you found differences between males and females those differences must be discussed and presented.

 

- Lines 316 - 320 needs a major revision.

 

Thanks,

 

 

- Lines 316 - 320 needs a major revision.

Author Response

Minor Revision

Anonymous reviewer #2

1. A procedure section: where the whole procedure is explained step by step. The conditions in which the experiment was done are essential for the study's replicability. Also, with the procedure, it will be clear how the metrics were obtained.

Authors' reply:

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion. After we carefully read the point, we then add more detail about how the testing metrics were obtained and referenced as detailed in the first and second paragraphs in section 5.3 Testing Metrics. Please see page 11.

 

2. if you found differences between males and females those differences must be discussed and presented.

Authors' reply:

After we have carefully reevaluated our sample data, it shows that there is a slight difference between males and females which are average age and foot sizes, however, our proposed approach thoroughly extracts key features focusing on the seven-dimension model for general measurement without considering the physical effects based on different genders, ages, and foot sizes. This is the main contribution of our proposed approach that we carefully explained in section 4 Proposed Seven-Dimension Model to make readers understand it clearly. We valued this helpful suggestion by adding more details about this point as detailed in section 5.2 Data Set Description. Please see page 11.

 

3. Lines 316 - 320 needs a major revision.

Authors' reply:

Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the text to address your concerns. Accordingly, throughout the manuscript, our manuscript has been reviewed and corrected the grammar one more time before submitting it by a native English-speaking colleague.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf