如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见

1、望对大家有帮忙 I.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

2、any question about this paper, please don t hesitate to letme know.Sincerelyyours,Dr.XXXXResponse to Reviewer 1:Thanks for your comments on our paper. We have revised our paper according to your comments:1. XXXXXXX2. XXXXXXX2.Dear Professor *,Re: An * Rotating Rigid-flexible Coupled System (No.: JSV

3、-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 commentsand your advice, we have made correspondin

4、g 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 accountis *, and Tel.is *, and Fax is +*.Yours sincerely,Detailed response to reviewer s commentsand Asian Editor s adviceOverall the comments have bee

5、n fair, encouraging and constructive. We have learned much from it. Although the reviewer s comments are generallypositive, we have carefullyproofread the manuscript and edit it as following.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)Besides the abovechanges, we have corrected some expression errors.Thank you very much for

6、the excellent and professional revision of our manuscript.3.The manuscript is revised submission ( xxx - xxxx) 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 accordin

7、g 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 clearindicationof thelocation of the revision.Hopethese willmake itmore acceptable for publication.List of MajorChanges:1)2)

8、3)Responseto Reviewers:1)2)3)Responseto Reviewer XXWe 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)XX2) XXDetaile

9、dresponses1) XX2)XX4.Dear editorXXWehave received the comments onour manuscript entitledXXby XX. According tothe comments of the reviewers, we have revised our manuscript. The revised manuscript and the detailed responses to the comments of the one reviewerareattached.Sincerely yours,XX5.Response to

10、 Reviewer AReviewer A very kindly contactedme directly,andrevealed 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, followedby these responsesto specificpoints,both his own, and those of the other reviewer.R

11、esponse to Specific PointsWhat followsis 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 Iwould resubm

12、it 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 Regrettably, not much attention is drawn to specific differences between the chosen examples that would be neces

13、sary to pinpoint specificities of perceptionmore precisely, and if perceptualsystems, as suggested, hler(Kindeedact on thebasis of HR, there must be many more specific constraints involved to ensure special veridicalityproperties of the perceptualoutcome, and the difficult analytic problems of concr

14、ete 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 alternativeneural receptive fieldparadigm, although examplesfrom visual perceptionare used to exemplify theprinciples

15、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 speci

16、fic 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 fiel

17、d. 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 it is notclarified whether the postulated propert

18、ies of Gestalts actually follow from this definition or partly derive from additional constraints. and I doubt that any of the reviewed examples for HR cantreat just the case of hler: (1961, p. 7) Human experience in the phenomenological sense cannot yet be treated with our most reliable methods; an

19、d when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new concepts which at first, will often be a bit vague.Wolfgang Kthe dog cited todemonstrateemergence. For this a hierarchy relation is needed.The principle of emergencein Gestalttheory is a very difficult concept to express in unambiguous terms, and

20、the dog picture was presented to illustrate this rather elusive conceptwith 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

21、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 significantfrom insignificant edges. The solution of the HR approach to visual ambiguity is explained in the paper in

22、 the section on Recognition by Reification (p.15-17) in which I propose thatrecognition is not simply a matter of the identification of features in the input, i.e. by the lighting up of a higher level feature node, but it involves a simultaneous abstraction and reification, in which the higher level

23、 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 thatarenot presentin the input stimulus, as evidenceforthis reification in perception, which ap

24、pears 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,orprototypicaldog, but as a dog percept thatiswarped to the exact posture and configuration allowed by the input, as observed in the subjective exper

25、ience of the dog picture. This explanation is subject to your criticism in your general comments, that the author demonstrates more insight than explicitly stated in assumptions and drawn conclusions. I can only say that, in Kuhns words, sometimes it is only personal and inarticulate aesthetic consi

26、derations that can be used to make the case.In the words of Wolfgang K?hler: (1961, p.7)Human 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 bea bit vague.Wolfga

27、ng K?hler (K?hler 1923 p. 64)Natural sciences continually advance explanatory hyptotheses, which cannot be verified by direct observation at the time when they are formed nor for a long time thereafter. Of such a kind were Amperes theory of magnetism, the kinetic theory of gases, the electronic theo

28、ry, the hypothesis of atomic disinte gration in the theory of radioactivity. Some of these assumptions have since been verified by direct obser vation, or have at least come close to such direct verification;others are still far removed from it. But physics and chemistry would have been condemned to

29、 a permanent embryonic state had they abstained from such hypotheses; their development seems rather like a continuous effort steadily to shorten the rest of the way to the verification of hypotheses which survive this processIn section (2) (b) of your critique you complain that there is no serious

30、discussion of possible alternatives, and you mention Neo-Gibsonian approaches, PDP, Grossbergs ART model and Pribrams holographic theory. In the next version of the paper this omission will be corrected, approximately as follows. Gibsons use of the term resonance is really a metaphorical device, sin

31、ce Gibson offers no mechanisms or analogies of perceptual processes, but merely suggests that there is a two-way flow of information (resonance) between behavior and the environment. This is really merely a metaphor, rather than a model.The PDP approach does address the issue of emergence, but since

32、 the basic computational unit of the neural network model is ahard-wired receptive field, this theory suffers all the limitations of a template theory. The same holds for Grossbergs Adaptive Resonance Theory, which also uses the word resonance metaphorically to suggest a bottom-up top- down matching

33、, but in Grossbergs model that matching is actually performed by receptive fields, or spatial templates. The ART model demonstrates the limitations of this approach. Fortheonly waythat ahigher-leveldetector, or F2 node, can exhibit generalization to differentinputpatterns,isforit to havesynaptic wei

34、ghts to all of the patterns to which it responds. In essence, the pattern of synaptic weights is a superposition or blurring together of all of the possible input patterns to which the F2 node should respond. In top-down priming mode thereforethatF2 node wouldprintthat sameblurred pattern back at th

35、e lower “F1 node level, activatingallof the possible patterns towhichthat F2 node is tuned to respond. For example if an ART model were trainedto respond to an X-shapedfeature presented atall possibleorientations, top-down priming of this node after training would print a pattern of all those X-shap

36、ed features at all orientations superimposed, which is simply an amorphous blob. In fact, that same node would respond even better to a blob feature than to any single X feature. In the presence of a partial or ambiguous X-like pattern presented at a particular orientation, the ART model could not c

37、omplete that pattern specific to its orientation. The HR model on the other hand offers a different and unique principle of representation, in which top-down activation of the higher level node can complete a partial or ambiguous input pattern in the specific orientation at which it appears, but tha

38、t same priming would complete the pattern differently if it appeared in a different orientation. This generalization in recognition, but specification in completion, is a property that is unique to the harmonic resonance representation.Kuhn observes that the old paradigm can always be reformulated t

39、o account for any particular phenomenon addressed by the new paradigm, just as the Ptolomaic earthcentered cosmology could account for the motions of the planets to arbitrary precision, given enough nested cycles and epicycles of the crystal spheres.Similarly, a conventional neural network model can

40、 always be contrived to exhibit the same functional behavior of generalized recognition but specific completion described above, but only by postulating an implausible arrangement of spatial receptive fields. In this case that would require specific X- feature templates applied to the input at every

41、 possible orientation, any one of which can stimulate a single rotation-invariant X-feature node, to account for bottom-up rotation invariance in recognition. However in order to also account for top-down completion specific to orientation, top-down activation of the higher-level invariant node woul

42、d have to feed back down to a set of topdown projection nodes, each of which is equipped with an X-shaped projective template at a particular orientation, able to project a complete X-shaped pattern on the input field. But the topdown completion must select only the specificorientationthat best matc

43、hes the pattern present in the input, and complete the pattern only at that best matching orientation. This system therefore requires two complete sets of X-feature receptive fields or templates, one set for bottom-up recognition andthe otherset fortop-downcompletion, each set containing X-feature t

44、emplates at every possibleorientation,and similarsets ofreceptive fields would be required for the recognition of other shaped patterns such as T and V features. This represents a brute force approach to achieving invariance, which although perhaps marginally plausible in this specific example, is c

45、ompletely implausible as a general principle of operation of neurocomputation, given the fact that invariance appears to be so fundamental a property of human and animal perception. However, as Kuhn also observes, a factor such as neural plausibility is itself a personal and inarticulate aesthetic c

46、onsideration that cannot be determined unambiguously by the evaluative procedures characteristic of normalscience.With regard to Pribrams Holographic theory, the concept of a hologram is closely related to a standing wave model, since it too works by interference of waveforms. The difference is that

47、 the hologram is frozen in time like a photograph, and therefore does not exhibit the tolerance to elastic deformation of the input, as does the standing wave model. Neither does the hologram exhibit rotation invariance as does the standing wave in a circular- symmetric system. However holograms can

48、 in principle be constructed of dynamic standing waves, as Pribram himself suggests, and this concept then becomes a harmonic resonance theory. The present proposal is therefore closely related to Pribrams approach, which will be discussedin the nextversion of thepaper.Thediscussion of alternative m

49、odels was indeed a significant omission in the versionof the paperyou reviewed, the next version will include such a discussion, which in turn will help to clarify the operational principles of the HR theory, and distinguish it from alternative approaches.Inthatsection (3) of your critique you propo

50、se notions like the receptive field concept are approximate descriptions of facts, and you proposea dualistic approach involving two forms of representations in the brain which are of differentand complementary nature. While I do not dispute the anatomical facts of the shapes of neuron and the funct

51、ion of synapses, it has never been demonstrated that a neuron actually operates as a spatial template, that theory arose as an explanation for the neurophysiological response of feature detector cells in the cortex. However the noisy stochastic nature of the neural response, and its very broad tunin

52、g function seem to argue against this view. My own hunch is that the feature detector behavior is itself a standing wave phenomenon, which is consistent with the fact that the response function of V1 cortical neurons resembles aGaborfunction, whichisitself awavelet. However this issue is orthogonal

53、to my main point,whichis thatwhetherornotsomeneurons behave as spatial templates, thelimitations of a template theory suggest that the Gestalt properties of perception (emergence, invariance, reification, multistability) cannot be accounted for in that manner, and that some other significant princip

54、le of computation must be invoked to account for the Gestalt properties of perception.In section (4) you complain that there is no discussion of the limitations in the scope of HR. For example merely to reflect outside reality does not contribute to the problem of conscious awareness of these object

55、s.However this issue isnot unique to HR, it is a generalphilosophicalissue that applies just as well to the alternative Neuron Doctrine model. But the Neuron doctrine itself cannot even plausibly account for the reflection of outside reality in an internal representation, due to the problems of emer

56、gence, reification, and invariance, which is why the Neuron Doctrine suggests a more abstracted concept of visual representation, in which the visual experience is encoded in a far more abstracted and abbreviated form. Therefore although HR does notsolve the problem of consciousness completely, it i

57、s one step closer to a solution than the alternative.The philosophical issue ofconsciousness however is beyond the scope of this paper, which is a theory of neural representation, rather than a philosophical paper. I enclose a copy of my book, The World In Your Head, which addresses these philosophi

58、cal issues more extensively.Professor Geisslers ResponseProfessor Geissler kindly responded to my letter in April 2000 to say that he agreed with nearly everything I had said. He then gave me adviceabout thepresentation of the idea. He recommended thatIbegin by describingthe Neuron Doctrinein detail

59、,and then pointout the limitations of the ideabefore presentingthe Harmonic Resonance theoryasan alternative. Ire-wrote thepaper followingGeisslers advice, and I included some ideas from the above letter in the new version of the paper. However it was too late to resubmit it to Psychological Review

60、since the editor who was handling the paper was leaving. Furthermore, I ambecoming convincedthat the propermedium forpresentingradicallynew and differenttheories isthe open peer review format of the Behavioral and Brain Sciences journal, which is where I submitted the revised version of this paper.6