Intelligent auxiliary system for music performance under edge computing and long short-term recurrent neural networks

Yi Wang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0285496

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 31, 2022
24 Feb 2023 Decision Letter - Muhammad Fazal Ijaz, Editor PONE-D-22-29932Intelligent Auxiliary System for Music Performance under Edge Computing and Long Short-Term Recurrent Neural NetworksPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, 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 24 March, 2023. 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Muhammad Fazal Ijaz 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. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ. 4. We note that Figure10 includes an image of a [patient / participant / in the study]. As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”. If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: No 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: The overall impression of the technical contribution of the current study is reasonable. However, the Authors may consider making necessary amendments to the manuscript for better comprehensibility of the study. 1. The abstract must be re-written, focusing on the technical aspects of the proposed model, the main experimental results, and the metrics used in the evaluation. Briefly discuss how the proposed model is superior. 2. Authors are recommended to re-check the keywords. 3. Provide adequate citations for the contenst of Introduction, like line 39 & 40. 4. The contribution of the current study must be briefly discussed as bullet points in the introduction. And motivation must also be discussed in the manuscript. 5. The overall organization of the manuscript is not discussed anywhere in the manuscript. Please add the same in the introduction section of the manuscript. 6. Introduction section must discuss the technical gaps associated with the current problem. 7. The literature section may be further improvised by incorporating some of the relevant studies like https://doi.org/10.3390/s21082852 and https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262708 8. Authors may provide the architecture/block diagram of the proposed model for better comprehensibility of the proposed model concerning various aspects of the proposed model. 9.The important details, like the input/tensor/kernel size, must be discussed, and whether authors have used Stride 1 or Stride, 2 must be presented. What type of activation function is being used in the current study.(Add if possible) 10. For how many epochs does the proposed model execute. what is the initial learning rate, and after how many epochs does the model's learning rate saturated.(Must add details). 11. Authors must provide the details of hyper parameters like training loss, testing loss, training accuracy and testing accuracy. check and include reference https://doi.org/10.3390/s22082988(Add graphs if possible) 12. More comparative analysis with state-of-art models is desired. (Must do more comparative analysis). 13. By considering the current form of the conclusion section, it is hard to understand by PLOS Journal readers. It should be extended with new sentences about the necessity and contributions of the study by considering the authors' opinions about the experimental results derived from some other well-known objective evaluation values if it is possible. (Add if possible) 14. Authors should use more alternative models as the benchmarking models, authors should also conduct some statistical tests to ensure the superiority of the proposed approach, i.e., how could authors ensure that their results are superior to others? Meanwhile, the authors also have to provide some insightful discussion of the results.(Add if possible) Reviewer #2: 1) The content is innovative, and the results are encouraging. So, the manuscript can be accepted. 2) In figures 13, 15, and 16, loss values should be written above each column. 3) Parameter setting table should be added to section result. In that table, number of layers, units, epoch, batch size etc. should be described. 4) The comparison results of different models should be presented in a table. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285496.r001
Revision 1
29 Mar 2023 Author Response Reviewer #1: The overall impression of the technical contribution of the current study is reasonable. However, the Authors may consider making necessary amendments to the manuscript for better comprehensibility of the study. 1. The abstract must be re-written, focusing on the technical aspects of the proposed model, the main experimental results, and the metrics used in the evaluation. Briefly discuss how the proposed model is superior. Reply: Thank you for your valuable advice. In terms of technology, the model adopts the image description generation model with attention mechanism, and combines the RNN abstract structure without considering recursion to optimize the abstract network structure of RNN-LSTM. The measurement standard of experimental results and evaluation is the model loss function value. The superiority of the suggested model is mainly reflected in the high accuracy and low consumption rate of dance movement recognition. The main technical advantages and evaluation criteria of the proposed model have been supplemented in detail in the abstract. 2. Authors are recommended to re-check the keywords. Reply: Thank you for your comments. The contents of keywords have been rechecked, and keywords such as "music, performance action" have been deleted, and appropriate keywords that are consistent with the research topic have been added. 3. Provide adequate citations for the contenst of Introduction, like line 39 & 40. Reply: Thank you for your valuable advice. More documents have been added to the introduction for reference. The serial number of the supplementary documents is [1,2]. Thank you again for your valuable advice. 4. The contribution of the current study must be briefly discussed as bullet points in the introduction. And motivation must also be discussed in the manuscript. Reply: Thank you for your valuable advice. The main contribution of the research is to analyze and optimize the relationship between music and dance performance by using the attention mechanism model. The main motivation of the research is to design and apply the intelligent assistant system for music performance through edge computing and long-term and short-term recurrent neural networks, so as to improve the performance level of music and dance movements. The contribution and main motivation of the research have been supplemented and discussed in detail in the introduction. 5. The overall organization of the manuscript is not discussed anywhere in the manuscript. Please add the same in the introduction section of the manuscript. Reply: Thank you for your comments. The first section of the manuscript is background introduction, the second section is explanation of research methods, the third section is analysis and discussion of research results, and the fourth section is summary of research conclusions. The overall structure of the manuscript has been supplemented in detail in the last paragraph of the introduction section. 6. Introduction section must discuss the technical gaps associated with the current problem. Reply: Thank you for your opinion. There is a certain gap between the current technology and the expected recognition accuracy of the model. The current model has a low level of musical intelligence assistance, and it cannot effectively combine performance movements with musical beats. The detailed discussion on the related technical gap has been supplemented in the introduction section of the research. 7. The literature section may be further improvised by incorporating some of the relevant studies like https://doi.org/10.3390/s21082852 and https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262708 Reply: Thank you for your valuable comments. The studies you mentioned have been supplemented in detail in the literature review section, and the number of the added studies is [5] and [6]. Thank you again for your valuable comments. 8. Authors may provide the architecture/block diagram of the proposed model for better comprehensibility of the proposed model concerning various aspects of the proposed model. Reply: Thank you for your valuable comments. The architecture diagram of the proposed model has been supplemented in detail in Figure 7. Thank you again for your comments. 9.The important details, like the input/tensor/kernel size, must be discussed, and whether authors have used Stride 1 or Stride, 2 must be presented. What type of activation function is being used in the current study.(Add if possible) Reply: Thank you for your valuable comments. The Input of the study is 50, Tensor is 100, and Kernel size is 22. Stride 2 is used in the study, and the type of activation function is Sigmoid. More important parameter details have been supplemented in Table 2. Thank you again for your comments. 10. For how many epochs does the proposed model execute. what is the initial learning rate, and after how many epochs does the model's learning rate saturated.(Must add details). Reply: Thank you for your valuable advice. The proposed model has carried out 500 iterations, with an initial learning rate of 0.005, and the learning rate of the model is saturated after 400 iterations. More parameter information about the model has been supplemented in Section 3 and Table 1. 11. Authors must provide the details of hyper parameters like training loss, testing loss, training accuracy and testing accuracy. check and include reference https://doi.org/10.3390/s22082988(Add graphs if possible) Reply: Thank you for your valuable comments. The training loss is 0.005, the test loss is 0.004, the training accuracy is 0.74, and the testing accuracy is 0.76. More details of the hyperparameter have been supplemented in Table 1. In addition, the literature provided has been referenced, and the supplementary literature is numbered [20]. Thank you again for your valuable advice. 12. More comparative analysis with state-of-art models is desired. (Must do more comparative analysis). Reply: Thank you for your valuable advice. The research results of this paper have been analyzed with the most advanced model results before. The proposed edge caching strategy can optimize the structure of the system, and the proposed hardware structure of the edge server can improve the network structure model. The model loss value of the system is greatly reduced, and the accuracy of the extraction and recognition of music and dance movements is greatly improved. More comparative analysis results have been supplemented in detail in the discussion section of the study. 13. By considering the current form of the conclusion section, it is hard to understand by PLOS Journal readers. It should be extended with new sentences about the necessity and contributions of the study by considering the authors' opinions about the experimental results derived from some other well-known objective evaluation values if it is possible. (Add if possible) Reply: Thank you for your valuable opinions. The objective evaluation and analysis results of the research results are summarized as follows. The main contribution of the research is to solve the problems of long access time and limited network bandwidth when multi-users access through the edge server architecture and system resource allocation, and improve the efficiency of data collection. The necessity of the research is to provide reference for the optimal design of music teaching system. The necessity and contribution of the study have been supplemented in detail in the conclusion section of the study. 14. Authors should use more alternative models as the benchmarking models, authors should also conduct some statistical tests to ensure the superiority of the proposed approach, i.e., how could authors ensure that their results are superior to others? Meanwhile, the authors also have to provide some insightful discussion of the results.(Add if possible) Reply: Thank you for your valuable advice. The statistical test results show that the model structure based on edge computing and recurrent neural network proposed in the study has the highest accuracy in action recognition. More discussion about the research results has been supplemented in detail in Section 4 of the study. Reviewer #2: 1) The content is innovative, and the results are encouraging. So, the manuscript can be accepted. Reply: Thank you for your valuable comments, and sincerely thank you for your contribution in the process of article review. 2) In figures 13, 15, and 16, loss values should be written above each column. Reply: Thank you for your valuable comments. Figures 13, 15 and 16 have been revised, and the loss function values have been supplemented at the top of each column. Thank you again for your valuable comments. 3) Parameter setting table should be added to section result. In that table, number of layers, units, epoch, batch size etc. should be described. Reply: Thank you for your valuable comments. The parameter results such as number of layers, units, epoch, batch size and threshold value iterations have been described in Table 1. Thank you again for your valuable comments. 4) The comparison results of different models should be presented in a table. Reply: Thank you for your comments. The comparison result of loss value of LSTM-1 is 0.0036, that of LSTM-3 and LSTM-5 is 0.0028, that of LSTM (nots=36) is 0.00433, and that of LSTM (nots=128) is 0.00282. The performance comparison results of different models have been supplemented in detail in Table 2. 1. We note that Figure10 includes an image of a [patient / participant / in the study]. As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”. If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual. Please provide your response in "Author Comments" box. Reply: Thank you for your valuable advice. The content of Figure 10 has been modified, and the image of the participant in Figure 10 has been deleted and replaced by a simulated robot. Thank you again for your audit opinion. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx* https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285496.r002
11 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Muhammad Fazal Ijaz, Editor PONE-D-22-29932R1Intelligent Auxiliary System for Music Performance under Edge Computing and Long Short-Term Recurrent Neural NetworksPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, 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 May 26 2023 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Muhammad Fazal Ijaz Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 2. 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. 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: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. 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: No ****** 6. 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: Authors have done necessary amendments in line with the recommendation of the reviewer. The manuscript in the current form may considered for the further phase of the editorial procedure. Reviewer #2: 1) Parameter setting table is not suitable. Parameter name and values should be written in columns, in the first column parameter name and in the second one parameter values. 2) Author just added one table for LSTM. For the other methods such as lookback value and comparison of different synthesis models do not have table. They should also add tables to mentioned methods and then explain the result of each table. ****** 7. 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285496.r003
Revision 2
13 Apr 2023 Author Response Reviewer #1: Authors have done necessary amendments in line with the recommendation of the reviewer. The manuscript in the current form may considered for the further phase of the editorial procedure. Reply: Okay, thank you for your affirmation after careful reading. I am glad to enter the next stage and look forward to your reply. Reviewer #2: 1) Parameter setting table is not suitable. Parameter name and values should be written in columns, in the first column parameter name and in the second one parameter values. Reply: Okay, thank you for your feedback after carefully reading. I have adjusted the format of the parameter setting table, with the first column being the parameter name and the second column being the parameter value. Please refer to Table 1. 2) Author just added one table for LSTM. For the other methods such as lookback value and comparison of different synthesis models do not have table. They should also add tables to mentioned methods and then explain the result of each table. Reply: OK, thank you for your comments after careful reading. I have added Table 3 below Section 3.2 to compare the loss function values of different cross domain sequence models under different look back values, to further reflect the advantages of the model proposed in this study. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285496.r004
25 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Muhammad Fazal Ijaz, Editor Intelligent Auxiliary System for Music Performance under Edge Computing and Long Short-Term Recurrent Neural Networks PONE-D-22-29932R2 Dear Dr. Wang, 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, Muhammad Fazal Ijaz Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. 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 ****** 6. 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: The authors have addressed all the recommendations of the reviewers in a reasonable manner, manuscript in the current from may be considered for the further phase of editorial process. Reviewer #2: Author has done all amendments suggested by reviewers. I confirm that this paper is a suitable one for publication. ****** 7. 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285496.r005
Formally Accepted
28 Apr 2023 Acceptance Letter - Muhammad Fazal Ijaz, Editor PONE-D-22-29932R2 Intelligent Auxiliary System for Music Performance under Edge Computing and Long Short-Term Recurrent Neural Networks Dear Dr. Wang: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Muhammad Fazal Ijaz Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285496.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .