Reviews of 1536 E-scent Coach: A Wearable Olfactory System to Guide Deep Breathing Synchronized with Yoga Postures
1536 E-scent Coach 的评论：可穿戴嗅觉系统，引导与瑜伽姿势同步的深呼吸
Reviewer 4 (AC) 审稿人 4 (AC)
Expertise 专业知识
Expert
专家
Overall Rating 总体评价
Possibly Reject: The submission is weak and probably shouldn't be accepted, but there is some chance it should get in; 2.0
可能拒绝：提交的内容很弱，可能不应该被接受，但有可能会被接受； 2.0
可能拒绝：提交的内容很弱，可能不应该被接受，但有可能会被接受； 2.0
Prior Work 之前的工作
Not Really
并不真地
(blank) （空白的）
Approach 方法
Yes
是的
(blank) （空白的）
Timeliness 时效性
Not Really
并不真地
(blank) （空白的）
Writing 写作
Not Really
并不真地
The Detailed Review 详细回顾
This paper proposes a wearable olfactory interface to promote deeper breathing during yoga, the "E-scent Coach." For this, the authors conducted two studies: first identifying the arousal and valence of several fragrances, and then testing high valence (one low arousal and the other high) fragrances in two conditions (delivered in sync with breathing or continuously). The paper has been thoroughly reviewed by two olfactory HCI experts, one with design/systems engineering experience (R1) and one in psychology and user experience studies (R3), alongside a 2AC with a strong systems background. All reviewers commend the novelty of the application (2AC, R1, R3) and studies (R1, R3), with the paper being "well-written" (2AC) and incredibly clear in its rationale and research goals (R3). However, the 2AC and R1 have raised important concerns about the system, which may fundamentally impact the results, which I wholeheartedly echo. Unfortunately, DIS does not include a rebuttal or time for major revisions. On this basis, we have recommended Rejection of the submission, so that the authors may have the time to address the concerns for future submission.
本文提出了一种可穿戴嗅觉界面，可促进瑜伽期间更深的呼吸，即“E-scent Coach”。为此，作者进行了两项研究：首先确定几种香水的唤醒度和效价，然后在两种条件下（与呼吸同步或连续传送）测试高价（一种低唤醒度和另一种高）香水。该论文已经过两位嗅觉 HCI 专家的彻底审阅，其中一位具有设计/系统工程经验 (R1)，一位具有心理学和用户体验研究经验 (R3)，另外一位具有强大系统背景的 2AC。所有审稿人都称赞该应用程序（2AC，R1，R3）和研究（R1，R3）的新颖性，该论文“写得很好”（2AC），其基本原理和研究目标非常清晰（R3）。然而，2AC 和 R1 对该系统提出了重要的担忧，这可能会从根本上影响结果，我衷心赞同这一点。不幸的是，DIS 不包括反驳或重大修改的时间。在此基础上，我们建议拒绝提交，以便作者有时间解决未来提交的问题。
# Strengths # 优势
+ The application is evidently novel and exciting to all reviewers (1AC, 2AC, R1, R3).
+ 对于所有审阅者（1AC、2AC、R1、R3）来说，该应用程序显然是新颖且令人兴奋的。
+ The submission is very well written (1AC, 2AC, R1, R3) and well motived (1AC, R3).
+ 提交的内容写得很好（1AC、2AC、R1、R3）并且动机良好（1AC、R3）。
# Concerns # 担忧
The reviewers identified critical concerns the authors should address in the future. I summarize these concerns in order of importance alongside suggestions for addressing them.
审稿人确定了作者将来应该解决的关键问题。我按照重要性顺序总结了这些问题以及解决这些问题的建议。
## Olfactory interface (2AC, R1, 1AC)
## 嗅觉接口（2AC、R1、1AC）
+ **Improve documentation of the system's functionality:** Please provide characterizations of the system regarding scent concentration and delays of scent release (2AC, R1). Clarify how scent intensity variations are controlled and perceived during different yoga poses.
+ **改进系统功能的文档：** 请提供有关气味浓度和气味释放延迟的系统特征（2AC、R1）。阐明在不同的瑜伽姿势中如何控制和感知气味强度的变化。
+ Addressing the potential latency issue and analyzing their effects is important for this systems contribution (R1).
+ 解决潜在的延迟问题并分析其影响对于该系统的贡献 (R1) 非常重要。
+ Additionally, I would like to note that voltage regulation of a vibrating mesh transducer does not necessarily equate with a concrete change in amount of fragrance aerosolized. In fact, a critical issue both for the breathing-synced system and study is repeated delivery with such small inter-stimulus intervals. Without proper filtration or ventilation (both room-scale and personal), the two study conditions would likely only have a difference in overall perceived odor intensity (if even any perceived difference at all). As R1 suggests in the next section, the authors should measure whether this pattern of odor delivery is perceivable over time (if perceiving the increases during inhalation is important).
+ 此外，我想指出的是，振动网传感器的电压调节并不一定等同于雾化香料量的具体变化。事实上，对于呼吸同步系统和研究来说，一个关键问题是在如此小的刺激间隔下重复传递。如果没有适当的过滤或通风（房间规模和个人），这两种研究条件可能只会在总体感知气味强度方面存在差异（即使有任何感知差异）。正如 R1 在下一节中建议的那样，作者应该衡量这种气味传递模式是否随着时间的推移是可感知的（如果感知吸入过程中的气味增加很重要）。
Depending on what the authors find with regards to (1) the latency and (2) how people perceive the odor intensity during synced delivery could drastically alter the papers' conclusions.
根据作者对（1）延迟和（2）人们在同步传输过程中如何感知气味强度的发现，可能会极大地改变论文的结论。
## Study design (2AC, R1, R3, 1AC)
## 研究设计（2AC、R1、R3、1AC）
+ Study 2's procedure does not control for the ordering effect between conditions (2AC). Should the authors rerun their study, they should either implement a counterbalanced design to manage order effects in the study setup or fully randomize the order to mitigate ordering effects.
+ 研究 2 的程序不控制条件之间的排序效应 (2AC)。如果作者重新进行研究，他们应该实施平衡设计来管理研究设置中的顺序效应，或者完全随机化顺序以减轻顺序效应。
+ Provide empirical data on scent detection times and the impact of yoga postures on scent perception, especially considering possible airflow disturbances and obstruction (e.g., blocking the scents from reaching the nose given the system is torso-mounted) (R1).
+ 提供有关气味检测时间和瑜伽姿势对气味感知影响的经验数据，特别是考虑到可能的气流干扰和阻塞（例如，由于系统安装在躯干上，因此阻止气味到达鼻子）（R1）。
+ Please provide a detailed explanation of how experimental parameters were chosen (e.g., comparing low versus high arousal fragrances). This will enhance the credibility of the study design and allow for reproducibility (R3).
+ 请详细说明如何选择实验参数（例如，比较低刺激性香水与高刺激性香水）。这将提高研究设计的可信度并实现可重复性 (R3)。
## System details (R1)
## 系统详细信息 (R1)
Given that the proposed system also relies on a posture recognition model that the authors train, model details should be clearly reported (R1). Provide a more comprehensive technical description of the system, including specifics about the posture recognition algorithm, its performance metrics, and any challenges encountered.
鉴于所提出的系统还依赖于作者训练的姿势识别模型，因此应该清楚地报告模型细节（R1）。提供系统的更全面的技术描述，包括有关姿势识别算法、其性能指标以及遇到的任何挑战的详细信息。
## Grounding in related work (R3)
## 相关工作基础（R3）
Significantly expand the list of references to support assertions throughout the paper (R3). Carefully review each section to ensure that all claims are adequately backed by literature. R3 provides a list of related works, which I reinclude below:
显着扩展参考文献列表以支持整篇论文的断言 (R3)。仔细审查每个部分，以确保所有主张都有文献充分支持。 R3 提供了相关作品的列表，我将其重新列出如下：
* Cornelio et al. 2023. "Smell and Taste-Based Interactions Enabled Through Advances in Digital Technology." _Handbook of Human Computer Interaction._ doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27648-9_16-1
* 科内利奥等人。 2023 年。“通过数字技术的进步实现基于嗅觉和味觉的交互。” _人机交互手册._ doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27648-9_16-1
* Desai et al. 2022. "Scent-delivery devices as a digital healthcare tool for olfactory training: A pilot focus group study in Parkinson's disease patients." _Digital Health_. doi:10.1177/20552076221129061
* 德赛等人。 2022 年。“气味传递设备作为嗅觉训练的数字医疗工具：针对帕金森病患者的试点焦点小组研究。” _数字健康_。号码：10.1177/20552076221129061
* Pizzoli et al. 2021. "The power of odor persuasion: The incorporation of olfactory cues in virtual environments for personalized relaxation." _Perspectives on Psychological Science_. doi:10.1177/17456916211014196
* Dozio et al. 2021. "May I smell your attention: Exploration of smell and sound for visuospatial attention in virtual reality." _Frontiers in Psychology_. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.671470
* Maggioni et al. 2020. "SMELL SPACE: mapping out the olfactory design space for novel interactions." In Proceedings of ACM CHI. doi:10.1145/3402449
* Maggioni et al. 2019. "OWidgets: A toolkit to enable smell-based experience design." _International Journal of Human-Computer Studies_. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.06.014
* Maggioni et al. 2018. "Smell-O-Message: integration of olfactory notifications into a messaging application to improve users' performance." In Proceedings of ACM ICMI. doi:10.1145/3242969.3242975
## Minor
**Scent selection:** While the 2AC raises concern about the validity of first evaluating the arousal and valence of fragrances in Study 1 and then using a separate group with those scents for Study 2, I would simply recommend the authors cite prior literature using this (or similar) structures for scent selection. (As a parallel, this structure is fairly common for studies using emotion-eliciting videos, though I would generally advise the authors have the second population _also_ assess the fragrances to ensure consistency.) Alternatively, mention that this is a limitation of the current paper.
**Improving figures and their captions (R1, R3):** Please address inconsistencies in visual representations, particularly in Fig. 9, ensuring they align with textual descriptions (R1). Consider revising the figure to more accurately represent variations in scent intensity during the breathing cycle.
Additionally, please revise figure captions to be more descriptive and self-contained (R3). This will enhance the readability of the paper, making it easier for readers to understand the visual content without flipping back to the text.
Consider introducing a dedicated "Future Work and Limitations" section (R3). This will not only improve the paper's thoroughness but also demonstrate a critical understanding of the research's scope and boundaries.
Consider expanding the discussion on system utility across different user skill levels (2AC).
## Stretch
Considering Study 2 may need to be rerun, the authors should consider what are appropriate baselines for their study. While I agree that No Scent is a useful condition, 2AC's suggestion of comparing olfactory versus auditory guidance's impact on inhalation depth may be very fruitful.
R1 suggests supplementing the paper with additional materials, such as videos of the system working in real time. (From 1AC: A lot of systems conferences like ACM DIS, CHI, or UIST appreciate a video included, even though it is optional.)
本文提出了一种可穿戴嗅觉界面，可促进瑜伽期间更深的呼吸，即“E-scent Coach”。为此，作者进行了两项研究：首先确定几种香水的唤醒度和效价，然后在两种条件下（与呼吸同步或连续传送）测试高价（一种低唤醒度和另一种高）香水。该论文已经过两位嗅觉 HCI 专家的彻底审阅，其中一位具有设计/系统工程经验 (R1)，一位具有心理学和用户体验研究经验 (R3)，另外一位具有强大系统背景的 2AC。所有审稿人都称赞该应用程序（2AC，R1，R3）和研究（R1，R3）的新颖性，该论文“写得很好”（2AC），其基本原理和研究目标非常清晰（R3）。然而，2AC 和 R1 对该系统提出了重要的担忧，这可能会从根本上影响结果，我衷心赞同这一点。不幸的是，DIS 不包括反驳或重大修改的时间。在此基础上，我们建议拒绝提交，以便作者有时间解决未来提交的问题。
# Strengths # 优势
+ The application is evidently novel and exciting to all reviewers (1AC, 2AC, R1, R3).
+ 对于所有审阅者（1AC、2AC、R1、R3）来说，该应用程序显然是新颖且令人兴奋的。
+ The submission is very well written (1AC, 2AC, R1, R3) and well motived (1AC, R3).
+ 提交的内容写得很好（1AC、2AC、R1、R3）并且动机良好（1AC、R3）。
# Concerns # 担忧
The reviewers identified critical concerns the authors should address in the future. I summarize these concerns in order of importance alongside suggestions for addressing them.
审稿人确定了作者将来应该解决的关键问题。我按照重要性顺序总结了这些问题以及解决这些问题的建议。
## Olfactory interface (2AC, R1, 1AC)
## 嗅觉接口（2AC、R1、1AC）
+ **Improve documentation of the system's functionality:** Please provide characterizations of the system regarding scent concentration and delays of scent release (2AC, R1). Clarify how scent intensity variations are controlled and perceived during different yoga poses.
+ **改进系统功能的文档：** 请提供有关气味浓度和气味释放延迟的系统特征（2AC、R1）。阐明在不同的瑜伽姿势中如何控制和感知气味强度的变化。
+ Addressing the potential latency issue and analyzing their effects is important for this systems contribution (R1).
+ 解决潜在的延迟问题并分析其影响对于该系统的贡献 (R1) 非常重要。
+ Additionally, I would like to note that voltage regulation of a vibrating mesh transducer does not necessarily equate with a concrete change in amount of fragrance aerosolized. In fact, a critical issue both for the breathing-synced system and study is repeated delivery with such small inter-stimulus intervals. Without proper filtration or ventilation (both room-scale and personal), the two study conditions would likely only have a difference in overall perceived odor intensity (if even any perceived difference at all). As R1 suggests in the next section, the authors should measure whether this pattern of odor delivery is perceivable over time (if perceiving the increases during inhalation is important).
+ 此外，我想指出的是，振动网传感器的电压调节并不一定等同于雾化香料量的具体变化。事实上，对于呼吸同步系统和研究来说，一个关键问题是在如此小的刺激间隔下重复传递。如果没有适当的过滤或通风（房间规模和个人），这两种研究条件可能只会在总体感知气味强度方面存在差异（即使有任何感知差异）。正如 R1 在下一节中建议的那样，作者应该衡量这种气味传递模式是否随着时间的推移是可感知的（如果感知吸入过程中的气味增加很重要）。
Depending on what the authors find with regards to (1) the latency and (2) how people perceive the odor intensity during synced delivery could drastically alter the papers' conclusions.
根据作者对（1）延迟和（2）人们在同步传输过程中如何感知气味强度的发现，可能会极大地改变论文的结论。
## Study design (2AC, R1, R3, 1AC)
## 研究设计（2AC、R1、R3、1AC）
+ Study 2's procedure does not control for the ordering effect between conditions (2AC). Should the authors rerun their study, they should either implement a counterbalanced design to manage order effects in the study setup or fully randomize the order to mitigate ordering effects.
+ 研究 2 的程序不控制条件之间的排序效应 (2AC)。如果作者重新进行研究，他们应该实施平衡设计来管理研究设置中的顺序效应，或者完全随机化顺序以减轻顺序效应。
+ Provide empirical data on scent detection times and the impact of yoga postures on scent perception, especially considering possible airflow disturbances and obstruction (e.g., blocking the scents from reaching the nose given the system is torso-mounted) (R1).
+ 提供有关气味检测时间和瑜伽姿势对气味感知影响的经验数据，特别是考虑到可能的气流干扰和阻塞（例如，由于系统安装在躯干上，因此阻止气味到达鼻子）（R1）。
+ Please provide a detailed explanation of how experimental parameters were chosen (e.g., comparing low versus high arousal fragrances). This will enhance the credibility of the study design and allow for reproducibility (R3).
+ 请详细说明如何选择实验参数（例如，比较低刺激性香水与高刺激性香水）。这将提高研究设计的可信度并实现可重复性 (R3)。
## System details (R1)
## 系统详细信息 (R1)
Given that the proposed system also relies on a posture recognition model that the authors train, model details should be clearly reported (R1). Provide a more comprehensive technical description of the system, including specifics about the posture recognition algorithm, its performance metrics, and any challenges encountered.
鉴于所提出的系统还依赖于作者训练的姿势识别模型，因此应该清楚地报告模型细节（R1）。提供系统的更全面的技术描述，包括有关姿势识别算法、其性能指标以及遇到的任何挑战的详细信息。
## Grounding in related work (R3)
## 相关工作基础（R3）
Significantly expand the list of references to support assertions throughout the paper (R3). Carefully review each section to ensure that all claims are adequately backed by literature. R3 provides a list of related works, which I reinclude below:
显着扩展参考文献列表以支持整篇论文的断言 (R3)。仔细审查每个部分，以确保所有主张都有文献充分支持。 R3 提供了相关作品的列表，我将其重新列出如下：
* Cornelio et al. 2023. "Smell and Taste-Based Interactions Enabled Through Advances in Digital Technology." _Handbook of Human Computer Interaction._ doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27648-9_16-1
* 科内利奥等人。 2023 年。“通过数字技术的进步实现基于嗅觉和味觉的交互。” _人机交互手册._ doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27648-9_16-1
* Desai et al. 2022. "Scent-delivery devices as a digital healthcare tool for olfactory training: A pilot focus group study in Parkinson's disease patients." _Digital Health_. doi:10.1177/20552076221129061
* 德赛等人。 2022 年。“气味传递设备作为嗅觉训练的数字医疗工具：针对帕金森病患者的试点焦点小组研究。” _数字健康_。号码：10.1177/20552076221129061
* Pizzoli et al. 2021. "The power of odor persuasion: The incorporation of olfactory cues in virtual environments for personalized relaxation." _Perspectives on Psychological Science_. doi:10.1177/17456916211014196
* Dozio et al. 2021. "May I smell your attention: Exploration of smell and sound for visuospatial attention in virtual reality." _Frontiers in Psychology_. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.671470
* Maggioni et al. 2020. "SMELL SPACE: mapping out the olfactory design space for novel interactions." In Proceedings of ACM CHI. doi:10.1145/3402449
* Maggioni et al. 2019. "OWidgets: A toolkit to enable smell-based experience design." _International Journal of Human-Computer Studies_. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.06.014
* Maggioni et al. 2018. "Smell-O-Message: integration of olfactory notifications into a messaging application to improve users' performance." In Proceedings of ACM ICMI. doi:10.1145/3242969.3242975
## Minor
**Scent selection:** While the 2AC raises concern about the validity of first evaluating the arousal and valence of fragrances in Study 1 and then using a separate group with those scents for Study 2, I would simply recommend the authors cite prior literature using this (or similar) structures for scent selection. (As a parallel, this structure is fairly common for studies using emotion-eliciting videos, though I would generally advise the authors have the second population _also_ assess the fragrances to ensure consistency.) Alternatively, mention that this is a limitation of the current paper.
**Improving figures and their captions (R1, R3):** Please address inconsistencies in visual representations, particularly in Fig. 9, ensuring they align with textual descriptions (R1). Consider revising the figure to more accurately represent variations in scent intensity during the breathing cycle.
Additionally, please revise figure captions to be more descriptive and self-contained (R3). This will enhance the readability of the paper, making it easier for readers to understand the visual content without flipping back to the text.
Consider introducing a dedicated "Future Work and Limitations" section (R3). This will not only improve the paper's thoroughness but also demonstrate a critical understanding of the research's scope and boundaries.
Consider expanding the discussion on system utility across different user skill levels (2AC).
## Stretch
Considering Study 2 may need to be rerun, the authors should consider what are appropriate baselines for their study. While I agree that No Scent is a useful condition, 2AC's suggestion of comparing olfactory versus auditory guidance's impact on inhalation depth may be very fruitful.
R1 suggests supplementing the paper with additional materials, such as videos of the system working in real time. (From 1AC: A lot of systems conferences like ACM DIS, CHI, or UIST appreciate a video included, even though it is optional.)
Reviewer 2 (2AC)
Expertise
Passing Knowledge
Overall Rating
. . . Between possibly reject and neutral; 2.5
Prior Work
Not Really
(blank)
Approach
Not Really
(blank)
Timeliness
Not Really
(blank)
Writing
Not Really
The Detailed Review
This paper presents a wearable olfactory system for breathing guidance in yoga postures. An initial user study was conducted to select scents with the highest or lowest arousal rating score among 12 scents. A 16-participant study evaluated the system's effect on breathing behavior and subjective experience in four types of scent release during Yoga. The result indicated the high-arousal scent helped increase participants' breath amplitude, while the low-arousal scent was preferred.
CONTRIBUTION:
- The paper proposed a wearable olfactory system connected with a Yoga postures detector, suitable for sports and can endure body movements.
- A usability study that reports the breathing guidance effect of the proposed system.
STRENGTHS:
- The idea of scent-based breathing guidance for sports is interesting, and it makes sense to utilize the olfactory system for minimum distraction compared to other sensations.
- Overall, the paper is well-written, with clear illustrations of figures.
- I appreciate the clear and comprehensive description of the system setup that enables replicability.
WEAKNESS:
- Missing technical details. While most of the system implementation is clearly described, the delay between detecting body posture and releasing scent was not specified. Besides, it's unknown how different the scent intensity is using a high or low voltage, given that the continuous release mode guides inhalation and exhalation by changing the voltage periodically. Can the participants tell the difference between strong and weak scents? It also makes more sense to visualize the continuous release with a change in scent intensity synchronized with the breath pattern.
- Study design. The study design concerns me the most, as the authors deployed Study 1 and Study 2 with different participants. As mentioned in the discussion, individual differences might lead to subjective perceptions of arousal levels, making me wonder if conducting an initial study to select two scents that might not universally give high or low arousal levels is necessary. Participants in Study 2 should be able to choose high/low arousal scents themselves.
- Order of conditions. The study procedure did not exclude the order effect between conditions, which should be counterbalanced between participants.
- Target user. Less experienced or novice Yoga practitioners were recruited for the study. I would like to know whether the system is only built for beginners or can benefit users who already know the moves but can use the support for breath guiding to enhance the experience.
SUGGESTIONS FOR REVISIONS:
- To verify the effect of high/low arousal scents, I suggest the authors consider redoing study 2. Instead of using No Scent as the control condition, comparing scent, visual, and audio guidance might be interesting.
- Provide characterizations of the system regarding scent density and delays of scent release.
- Discuss the system's potential use for different experience levels of Yoga practitioners.
CONTRIBUTION:
- The paper proposed a wearable olfactory system connected with a Yoga postures detector, suitable for sports and can endure body movements.
- A usability study that reports the breathing guidance effect of the proposed system.
STRENGTHS:
- The idea of scent-based breathing guidance for sports is interesting, and it makes sense to utilize the olfactory system for minimum distraction compared to other sensations.
- Overall, the paper is well-written, with clear illustrations of figures.
- I appreciate the clear and comprehensive description of the system setup that enables replicability.
WEAKNESS:
- Missing technical details. While most of the system implementation is clearly described, the delay between detecting body posture and releasing scent was not specified. Besides, it's unknown how different the scent intensity is using a high or low voltage, given that the continuous release mode guides inhalation and exhalation by changing the voltage periodically. Can the participants tell the difference between strong and weak scents? It also makes more sense to visualize the continuous release with a change in scent intensity synchronized with the breath pattern.
- Study design. The study design concerns me the most, as the authors deployed Study 1 and Study 2 with different participants. As mentioned in the discussion, individual differences might lead to subjective perceptions of arousal levels, making me wonder if conducting an initial study to select two scents that might not universally give high or low arousal levels is necessary. Participants in Study 2 should be able to choose high/low arousal scents themselves.
- Order of conditions. The study procedure did not exclude the order effect between conditions, which should be counterbalanced between participants.
- Target user. Less experienced or novice Yoga practitioners were recruited for the study. I would like to know whether the system is only built for beginners or can benefit users who already know the moves but can use the support for breath guiding to enhance the experience.
SUGGESTIONS FOR REVISIONS:
- To verify the effect of high/low arousal scents, I suggest the authors consider redoing study 2. Instead of using No Scent as the control condition, comparing scent, visual, and audio guidance might be interesting.
- Provide characterizations of the system regarding scent density and delays of scent release.
- Discuss the system's potential use for different experience levels of Yoga practitioners.
Reviewer 1 (Reviewer)
Expertise
Expert
Overall Rating
. . . Between possibly reject and neutral; 2.5
Prior Work
Not Really
(blank)
Approach
Not Really
(blank)
Timeliness
Yes
This work presents a new attempt of olfactory interaction in yoga.
Writing
Not Really
The Detailed Review
The paper presents the development of the E-scent Coach, a wearable olfactory system designed to augment yoga practice by guiding deep breathing through scent cues, synchronized with yoga postures. The exploratory study conducted assesses the impact of scent on facilitating deep breathing in yoga, focusing on variations in scent presentation patterns and arousal levels.
Positive aspects:
1. Innovative Application: The exploration of an olfactory display system in the context of yoga is a novel approach. The potential of scent to guide breathing, as opposed to traditional visual or auditory cues, presents a compelling case for its effectiveness and innovation. The application's novelty and potential utility in enhancing the yoga experience through a sensory modality that is less explored in this context is noteworthy.
2. User Studies Appreciation: The execution of two user studies focusing on scent selection and the comparison of different scent delivery modes and arousal levels is commendable. These studies likely provide valuable insights and guidance for the application of scents in yoga, contributing to the field's understanding of olfactory displays in physical activity.
Negative aspects:
3. **Concerns About System Implementation Details**:
- The paper presents an integrated system combining posture recognition with scent delivery but lacks detailed technical descriptions, particularly in the implementation section.
- There is a noticeable absence of information regarding the posture recognition model (merely mentioning the use of Scikit-Learn for training), its accuracy, and any supplementary material demonstrating the effectiveness of the recognition method.
- The potential latency from scent triggering to scent perception has not been addressed. Details such as the recognition trigger points(during the user motion process or after?), the delay duration, and the impact of different yoga postures on scent perception (considering the possible airflow disturbances caused by movements) are crucial and should be elaborated upon. This is important because without addressing latency, it's impossible to determine if it's the latency that's causing a poor user experience or if the presentation pattern itself is an issue. As some users have pointed out in interviews (line 880-line 886).
4. Suggestions for Improvement:
- The authors should provide a more comprehensive technical description of the system, including specifics about the posture recognition algorithm, its performance metrics, and any challenges encountered.
- Addressing the latency issue is essential. It would be beneficial for the paper to include an analysis of the latency effects, how they might impact the user experience, and any potential solutions or mitigations the authors considered.
- Supplementing the paper with additional materials, such as videos demonstrating the system in action and data on scent detection times, could significantly strengthen the research's credibility and depth.
- Clarification Needed for Fig. 9: The use of rectangles in Fig. 9 to represent scent emission might be misleading, as it could imply that the intensity of the scent remains constant in the continuous mode. This contradicts the textual description in the paper, which states that the driving voltage—and thus the scent intensity—varies, increasing during the inhalation phase and decreasing during the exhalation phase. A more accurate visual representation or clarification in the figure's caption is essential to avoid confusion.
Positive aspects:
1. Innovative Application: The exploration of an olfactory display system in the context of yoga is a novel approach. The potential of scent to guide breathing, as opposed to traditional visual or auditory cues, presents a compelling case for its effectiveness and innovation. The application's novelty and potential utility in enhancing the yoga experience through a sensory modality that is less explored in this context is noteworthy.
2. User Studies Appreciation: The execution of two user studies focusing on scent selection and the comparison of different scent delivery modes and arousal levels is commendable. These studies likely provide valuable insights and guidance for the application of scents in yoga, contributing to the field's understanding of olfactory displays in physical activity.
Negative aspects:
3. **Concerns About System Implementation Details**:
- The paper presents an integrated system combining posture recognition with scent delivery but lacks detailed technical descriptions, particularly in the implementation section.
- There is a noticeable absence of information regarding the posture recognition model (merely mentioning the use of Scikit-Learn for training), its accuracy, and any supplementary material demonstrating the effectiveness of the recognition method.
- The potential latency from scent triggering to scent perception has not been addressed. Details such as the recognition trigger points(during the user motion process or after?), the delay duration, and the impact of different yoga postures on scent perception (considering the possible airflow disturbances caused by movements) are crucial and should be elaborated upon. This is important because without addressing latency, it's impossible to determine if it's the latency that's causing a poor user experience or if the presentation pattern itself is an issue. As some users have pointed out in interviews (line 880-line 886).
4. Suggestions for Improvement:
- The authors should provide a more comprehensive technical description of the system, including specifics about the posture recognition algorithm, its performance metrics, and any challenges encountered.
- Addressing the latency issue is essential. It would be beneficial for the paper to include an analysis of the latency effects, how they might impact the user experience, and any potential solutions or mitigations the authors considered.
- Supplementing the paper with additional materials, such as videos demonstrating the system in action and data on scent detection times, could significantly strengthen the research's credibility and depth.
- Clarification Needed for Fig. 9: The use of rectangles in Fig. 9 to represent scent emission might be misleading, as it could imply that the intensity of the scent remains constant in the continuous mode. This contradicts the textual description in the paper, which states that the driving voltage—and thus the scent intensity—varies, increasing during the inhalation phase and decreasing during the exhalation phase. A more accurate visual representation or clarification in the figure's caption is essential to avoid confusion.
Reviewer 3 (Reviewer)
Expertise
Expert
Overall Rating
Possibly Accept: I would argue for accepting this paper; 4.0
Prior Work
Not Really
(blank)
Approach
Not Really
(blank)
Timeliness
Not Really
(blank)
Writing
Not Really
The Detailed Review
This paper explores the effects of scents on guiding deep breathing during yoga from two dimensions: scent presentation pattern and arousal level.
The study design is carefully described. The originality stands in the creation of a novel olfactory device which is wearable and light, as well as the idea itself to scientifically prove that smell can affect breathing patterns during yoga positions.
I appreciate that the authors spent a lot of time in carefully picking the scents and describing the device and the motion recognition procedure of Study 2. Despite being known that scents can affect emotions memories quality of life breathing behaviour, no study that I recall deployed a new wearable device to deliver scents to affect breathing pattens in yoga exercise.
I appreciate the clear explanation of their rationales, research questions, study designs and results.
However, I have a few recommendations for the authors to make the paper stronger and cleaner:
- Add more references. I think a lot of sentences lack of references. For example, p2 line 74, 78, 87, 88 (for now only ref 6 but I would add more being the core of your RQs); p3 line 151; p8 line 388.
Moreover, I would suggest the authors to check the following paper:
https://scholar.google.com.sg/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=it&user=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ:ldfaerwXgEUC
https://scholar.google.com.sg/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=it&user=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ:M3NEmzRMIkIC
https://scholar.google.com.sg/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=it&user=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ:iH-uZ7U-co4C
https://scholar.google.com.sg/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=it&user=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ:4JMBOYKVnBMC
https://scholar.google.com.sg/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=it&user=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ:HDshCWvjkbEC
https://scholar.google.com.sg/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=it&user=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ:L8Ckcad2t8MC
https://scholar.google.com.sg/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=it&user=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ&cstart=20&pagesize=80&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ:KlAtU1dfN6UC.
- Rephrase the captions of the pictures. I think your pictures are great and very useful but I would suggest to include the description of each figure in the captions instead of the main body. For example, page 6 is hard to follow.
- Check the spaces and be consistent between works and references ( s[ or s [).
- Create a Future Work and Limitations section is always good practice and will strength the paper.
- Be careful with the use of "everyday use" (line 171) and "often" (line 84).
- Clarify how you came up with parameters in page 7.
Overall, I am really pleased with this work. I can see plenty of opportunities to apply such technology and design for different and wide applications. I would like to see this paper published.
The study design is carefully described. The originality stands in the creation of a novel olfactory device which is wearable and light, as well as the idea itself to scientifically prove that smell can affect breathing patterns during yoga positions.
I appreciate that the authors spent a lot of time in carefully picking the scents and describing the device and the motion recognition procedure of Study 2. Despite being known that scents can affect emotions memories quality of life breathing behaviour, no study that I recall deployed a new wearable device to deliver scents to affect breathing pattens in yoga exercise.
I appreciate the clear explanation of their rationales, research questions, study designs and results.
However, I have a few recommendations for the authors to make the paper stronger and cleaner:
- Add more references. I think a lot of sentences lack of references. For example, p2 line 74, 78, 87, 88 (for now only ref 6 but I would add more being the core of your RQs); p3 line 151; p8 line 388.
Moreover, I would suggest the authors to check the following paper:
https://scholar.google.com.sg/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=it&user=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ:ldfaerwXgEUC
https://scholar.google.com.sg/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=it&user=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ:M3NEmzRMIkIC
https://scholar.google.com.sg/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=it&user=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ:iH-uZ7U-co4C
https://scholar.google.com.sg/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=it&user=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ:4JMBOYKVnBMC
https://scholar.google.com.sg/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=it&user=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ:HDshCWvjkbEC
https://scholar.google.com.sg/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=it&user=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ:L8Ckcad2t8MC
https://scholar.google.com.sg/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=it&user=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ&cstart=20&pagesize=80&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=f3f0Oj4AAAAJ:KlAtU1dfN6UC.
- Rephrase the captions of the pictures. I think your pictures are great and very useful but I would suggest to include the description of each figure in the captions instead of the main body. For example, page 6 is hard to follow.
- Check the spaces and be consistent between works and references ( s[ or s [).
- Create a Future Work and Limitations section is always good practice and will strength the paper.
- Be careful with the use of "everyday use" (line 171) and "often" (line 84).
- Clarify how you came up with parameters in page 7.
Overall, I am really pleased with this work. I can see plenty of opportunities to apply such technology and design for different and wide applications. I would like to see this paper published.
Return to submission and reviews