・貢献 味情報を携帯端末上で制御できる機構を構築した．
レシーバーで提示できる刺激を一定程度評価実験で求めた．
コミュニケーションプロセスを明示した．
・強み 味情報のプロトコルとして，新規な手法を提案したところ．
そして熱刺激を電気刺激と一緒に活用できているところ．
一部評価や関連内容との比較、分析は不足しているが，システムの可能性をを議論する内容は揃っている．
・弱み 参考文献の分類が読み手の誤解を招く．
例えば，私は舌への電気刺激は構造上化学的刺激に入ると考えている．
Rating
52
Translation / English
- Posted at 07 Apr 2012 at 10:04
- Contribution: Established a mechanism which can control taste information on a mobile terminal.
Some kinds of stimulation which can be shown by the receiver were calculated to certain level through the evaluation test. Communication process is expressly presented.
- Advantages: A novel way is proposed as the taste information protocol.
Temperature stimulation is utilized together with electric stimulation.
Some requirements are not sufficed, such as certain kinds of evaluations, comparison with related contents and analysis, but the contents necessary for discussion about the possibility of this system are sufficed.
- Disadvantages: Classification of referential documents may cause misunderstanding by the readers.
For example, I think that the electrical stimulation to tongues should be classified into the chemical stimulation due to its mechanism.
Some kinds of stimulation which can be shown by the receiver were calculated to certain level through the evaluation test. Communication process is expressly presented.
- Advantages: A novel way is proposed as the taste information protocol.
Temperature stimulation is utilized together with electric stimulation.
Some requirements are not sufficed, such as certain kinds of evaluations, comparison with related contents and analysis, but the contents necessary for discussion about the possibility of this system are sufficed.
- Disadvantages: Classification of referential documents may cause misunderstanding by the readers.
For example, I think that the electrical stimulation to tongues should be classified into the chemical stimulation due to its mechanism.
Rating
50
Translation / English
- Posted at 07 Apr 2012 at 10:59
*Contribution:
Stimulus that can be expressed by a receiver was obtained to some extent by evaluation experiment.
A communication process was clearly specified.
*Asset:
A new method was proposed for protocol of taste information.
Thermal stimulus can be used together with electric stimulus.
Comparison with a part evaluation and relevant content together with the content with which we can discuss about the system has been prepared. Analyses, however, are still to be done further.
*Liability:
The way of categorization of literature may cause misunderstanding of readers.
For example, I myself think that the electric stimulus is placed in the category of chemical stimulus from structural consideration.
Stimulus that can be expressed by a receiver was obtained to some extent by evaluation experiment.
A communication process was clearly specified.
*Asset:
A new method was proposed for protocol of taste information.
Thermal stimulus can be used together with electric stimulus.
Comparison with a part evaluation and relevant content together with the content with which we can discuss about the system has been prepared. Analyses, however, are still to be done further.
*Liability:
The way of categorization of literature may cause misunderstanding of readers.
For example, I myself think that the electric stimulus is placed in the category of chemical stimulus from structural consideration.
多くの関連研究を参照，比較すべき．実験も知見との関連を議論すべき．
この文章を楽しんで読んだ．特にTは新しい提案で将来の発展性が素晴らしい．
だがHは新しいと言い切れない．既存の研究が多いからだ．気づいているとは思うが、もう少し参照して議論すべき。
Bは、Gの変換に成功し，Nらの提案では特定物にGを加える方法を提案し，活用法を紹介している．目的は違うが，議論してはどうだろうか．
Kの文献を参照すること．これはEと同じアプローチだ．
余裕はあるから論文をよいものにしてほしい．
Rating
52
Translation / English
- Posted at 07 Apr 2012 at 10:15
Many related studies should be referred and compared with. Experiments should be discussed for its relation with perception.
I read this documents with pleasure. Especially, T has excellent potential evolvability in terms of its novel proposal.
H, however, may not definitely deemed to be novel, because there are many existing studies on it. As you notice, more discussion should be done by referring to more materials.
B successfully changed G, proposed a way to add G to certain element due to the proposal by N et al, and introduced the application thereof. This can be discussed, though the purposes are different.
Reference documents of K should be referred. This is the same approach with K.
As there is sufficient time, I hope that the paper should be improved more.
I read this documents with pleasure. Especially, T has excellent potential evolvability in terms of its novel proposal.
H, however, may not definitely deemed to be novel, because there are many existing studies on it. As you notice, more discussion should be done by referring to more materials.
B successfully changed G, proposed a way to add G to certain element due to the proposal by N et al, and introduced the application thereof. This can be discussed, though the purposes are different.
Reference documents of K should be referred. This is the same approach with K.
As there is sufficient time, I hope that the paper should be improved more.
Rating
50
Translation / English
- Posted at 07 Apr 2012 at 11:18
Many other relevant researches must be cited and compared. The experimental result obtained must be discussed in relation to other literature.
I enjoyed reading the article. Especially T is an innovative proposal and its development is very promising.
On the other hand, H cannot evaluate as innovative. There have been and are much similar researches. I think you already noticed yourself, you should make a discussion referring these researches.
B succeeded the transformation of G. N et al. proposed the method to add G to a specified substance and introduced the use of this method. Although their aims are different, to discuss about these affairs may be useful.
Refer to K’s article. His approach is the same as that of E.
There is still enough time left, so I want you to raise the level of your article.
I enjoyed reading the article. Especially T is an innovative proposal and its development is very promising.
On the other hand, H cannot evaluate as innovative. There have been and are much similar researches. I think you already noticed yourself, you should make a discussion referring these researches.
B succeeded the transformation of G. N et al. proposed the method to add G to a specified substance and introduced the use of this method. Although their aims are different, to discuss about these affairs may be useful.
Refer to K’s article. His approach is the same as that of E.
There is still enough time left, so I want you to raise the level of your article.
