PONE-D-20-32471

Impact of delayed response on Wearable Cognitive Assistance

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Olguín Muñoz,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 20 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

M. Usman Ashraf, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.) Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.) We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Note.

Following page numbers refer to the numbers at the bottom of pages which are in black colour in the manuscript.

Line numbers refer to the line numbers of the document that are written on the right side of the pages.

I have several comments regarding different parts of the manuscript that follow below:

Introduction

1)Please bring references for “One is providing quality of life improvements to the millions of people around the world affected by some form of cognitive decline”

“WCA can, for instance, provide assistance to people recovering from traumatic brain injuries, smoothly guiding them through day-to-day interactions with the world which would otherwise be extremely challenging”.

(p2, lines 13-17).

2) “Characterizing the relationships between system responsiveness and user behavior and experience is of paramount importance for the design and evaluation of these applications.” (p2, lines 54-56).

This sentence needs some more clarifications regarding user behaviour and experience:

Bringing some examples for user behaviour and specifying the experience may help to better understand it. For instance, if the experience is an experience about the use of such applications then it needs to add “use experience” to make it clear.

3)The research questions cannot be found easily. They should be explained. The aim of the study is mentioned (p3, lines 64-65) i.e. how human behavior changes with system responsiveness. We aim to tackle this question…

but the research questions need to be clarified too.

4)We present in this paper an experimental WCA test-bed of our design and making.

(p3, line 70) it seems the sentence is not complete: and making??

5)This test-bed was subsequently employed in a study in which undergraduate students were asked to interact with and follow the instructions given to them by a cognitive assistant (p3, lines 71-73).

Please bring more information about undergraduate students for example in which field, gender…

6)Research hypotheses should be mentioned and explained in a clear way.

7)The introduction part needs to be more elaborated with theoretical frame.

Section 2.2

1)As the authors wrote a third potential explanation of delay effects…(p5,line 167) 

Similar types of writing for all three explanation may help readers grasp the messages easier:

Thus, I suggest that the authors bring at the beginning of previous relevant phrases “first explanation” and “second explanation” too.

Section 3: experimental design

1)Key characteristics of the sample should be clarified.

2)Sections 3.1, 3.2 need to be summarized. This part regarding definitions are too long and need to be shortened.

3)Subsections 3.3.3 also need to be shortened and summarized in a clearer way. This part is very long too. For instance, EEG is well known, it doesn’t need to be defined very much.

Discussion

1)This part is very short in comparison to other parts of this study. The reflection of the authors of the current paper on their results is missing (the reflection of authors regarding why some results were significant while other not are important). Thus the authors should elaborate the discussion part as well.

Reviewer #2: The paper is well written. Considering the following comments makes the manuscript better:

1) The explanations have been used too much in somewhere. For example, it is not necessary to explain the ANOVA test. This test is well known.

2) Use more resolution for figures.

3) Some figures can be inserted in a figure as subplots and or subpanels.

4) In line 286 at the end of line the "A Latin" is written, what is that??

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Impact of delayed response on Wearable Cognitive Assistance

PONE-D-20-32471R1

Dear Dr. Olguín Muñoz,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

M. Usman Ashraf, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE