-
望对大家有帮助
1.
Dear Prof.
XXXX,
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
letter
and
the
comments
from
the
referees
about
our
paper
submitted to XXXX (MS Number XXXX).
We have checked the manuscript and
revised it according to the comments. We submit
here
the revised manuscript as well as
a list of changes.
If you have any
question about this paper, please don’t hesitate
to let me know.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. XXXX
Response to Reviewer 1:
Thanks
for
your
comments
on
our
paper.
We
have
revised
our
paper
according
to
your
comments:
1. XXXXXXX
2. XXXXXXX
2.
Dear Professor ***,
Re: An *** Rotating Rigid-flexible
Coupled System (No.: JSV-D-06-***)
by ***
Many
thanks for your email of 24 Jun 2006, regarding
the revision and advice of the above
paper in JSV
. Overall the
comments have been fair, encouraging and
constructive. We have
learned much from
it.
After
carefully
studying
the
reviewer’
comments
and
your
advice,
we
have
made
corresponding changes
to the paper. Our response of the comments is
enclosed.
If
you
need
any
other
information,
please
contact
me
immediately
by
email.
My
email
account is ***, and ***, and Fax is
+***.
Yours sincerely,
Detailed response to
reviewer’s comments and Asian Editor’s
advice
Overall
the comments have been fair, encouraging and
constructive. We have learned much
from
it.
Although
the
reviewer’s
comments
are
generally
positive,
we
have
carefully
proofread the
manuscript and edit it as following.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Besides the
above changes, we have corrected some expression
errors.
Thank you very much
for the excellent and professional revision of our
manuscript.
3.
The
manuscript is revised submission (×
×
×
－
×
×
×
×
) with new line and
page numbers in the
text,
some
grammar
and
spelling
errors
had
also
been
corrected.
Furthermore,
the
relevant
regulations had been made in the
original manuscript according to the comments of
reviewers,
and the major revised
portions were marked in red bold. We also
responded point by point to
each
reviewer comments as listed below, along with a
clear indication of the location of the
revision.
Hope these will
make it more acceptable for publication.
List of Major Changes:
1).........
2).........
3).........
Response to Reviewers:
1).........
2).........
3).........
Response to Reviewer XX
We very much appreciate the careful
reading of our manuscript and valuable suggestions
of
the
reviewer. We
have
carefully
considered
the
comments
and
have
revised the
manuscript
accordingly. The comments can be
summarized as follows:
1)
XX
2) XX
Detailed responses
1) XX
2) XX
4.
Dear editor XX
We have received the comments on our
manuscript entitled “XX” by XX. According to the
comments of the reviewers, we have
revised our manuscript. The revised manuscript and
the
detailed responses to the comments
of the one reviewer are attached.
Sincerely yours,
XX
5.
Response to
Reviewer A
Reviewer
A
very
kindly
contacted
me
directly,
and
revealed
himself
to
be
Professor
Dr.
Hans-Georg
Geissler
of
the
University
of
Leipzig.
I
wrote
him
a
general
response
to
both
reviews in January 2000, followed by
these responses to specific points, both his own,
and
those of the other reviewer .
Response to Specific Points
What follows is a brief and
cursory discussion of the various issues raised by
yourself and the
other reviewer. If you
should revise your judgment of the validity of the
theory, these points
will
be
addressed
at
greater
length
in
a
new
version
of
the
paper
that
I
would
resubmit
to
Psychological Review.
Response to Specific Points- Reviewer
A:
In
part
(1)
of
your
critique
the
major
complaint
is
that
no
theory
is
presented,
which
was
discussed
above.
You
continue
not
much
attention
is
drawn
to
specific
differences between the chosen examples
that would be necessary to pinpoint specificities
of
perception more
precisely
basis
of
HR,
there
must
be
many
more
specific
constraints
involved
to
ensure
special
`veridicality'
properties
of
the
perceptual
outcome
and
difficult
analytic
problems
of
concrete
modeling
of
perception
are
not
even
touched
The
model
as
presented
is
not
a
model
of
vision
or
audition
or
any
other
particular
modality,
but
is
a
general
model
to
confront
the
alternative
neural
receptive
field
paradigm,
although
examples
from
visual
perception are used
to exemplify the principles discussed. The more
specific visual model was
submitted
elsewhere,
in
the
Orientational
Harmonic
model,
where
I
showed
how
harmonic
resonance accounts
for specific visual illusory effects. As discussed
above, the attempt here is
to
propose
a
general
principle
of
neurocomputation, rather than
a
specific
model
of
visual,
auditory, or any other specific sensory
modality. Again, what I am proposing is a paradigm
rather than a theory, i.e. an
alternative principle of neurocomputation with
specific and unique
properties, as an
alternative to the neuron doctrine paradigm of the
spatial receptive field. If
this
paper
is
eventually
accepted
for
publication,
then
I
will
resubmit
my
papers
on
visual
illusory phenomena, referring to this
paper to justify the use of the unconventional
harmonic
resonance mechanism.
In part (2) (a) of your
critique you say
Gestalts actually
follow from this definition or partly derive from
additional constraints.
experience
in
the
phenomenological
sense
cannot
yet
be
treated
with
our
most
reliable methods; and
when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new
concepts which at
first, will often be
a bit vague.
a hierarchy relation is
needed.
concept to express in
unambiguous terms, and the dog picture was
presented to illustrate this
rather
elusive concept with a concrete example. I do not
suggest that HR as proposed in this
paper can address the dog picture as
such, since this is specifically a visual problem,
and the
HR
model
as
presented
is
not
a
visual
model.
Rather,
I
propose
that
the
feature
detection
paradigm cannot in principle handle
this kind of ambiguity, because the local features
do not
individually
contain
the
information
necessary
to
distinguish
significant
from
insignificant
edges. The solution of the HR approach
to visual ambiguity is explained in the paper in
the
section on
simply
a
matter
of
the
identification
of
features
in
the
input,
i.e.
by
the
up
of
a
higher level feature node, but it
involves a simultaneous abstraction and
reification, in which
the higher level
feature node reifies its particular pattern back
at the input level, modulated by
the
exact
pattern
of
the
input.
I
appeal
to
the
reader
to
see
the
reified
form
of
the
dog
as
perceived edges and
surfaces that are not present in the input
stimulus, as evidence for this
reification
in
perception,
which
appears
at
the
same
time
that
the
recognition
occurs.
The
remarkable property of this reification
is that the dog appears not as an image of a
canonical,
or prototypical dog, but as
a dog percept that is warped to the exact posture
and configuration
allowed
by
the
input,
as
observed
in
the
subjective
experience
of
the
dog
picture.
This
explanation
is
subject
to
your
criticism
in
your
general
comments,
that
author