如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见

望对大家有帮忙I.DearProf.XXXX,ThankyouverymuchforyourletterandthecommentsfromtherefereesaboutourpapersubmittedtoXXXX(MSNumberXXXX).Wehavecheckedthemanuscriptandreviseditaccordingtothecomments.Wesubmitheretherevisedmanuscriptaswellasalistofchanges.Ifyouhaveanyquestionaboutthispaper,pleasedon'thesitatetoletmeknow.Sincerelyyours,Dr.XXXXResponsetoReviewer1:Thanksforyourcommentsonourpaper.Wehaverevisedourpaperaccordingtoyourcomments:1.XXXXXXX2.XXXXXXX2.DearProfessor***,Re:An***RotatingRigid-flexibleCoupledSystem(No.:JSV-D-06-***)by***Manythanksforyouremailof24Jun2006,regardingtherevisionandadviceoftheabovepaperinJSV.Overallthecommentshavebeenfair,encouragingandconstructive.Wehavelearnedmuchfromit.Aftercarefullystudyingthereviewer'commentsandyouradvice,wehavemadecorrespondingchangestothepaper.Ourresponseofthecommentsisenclosed.Ifyouneedanyotherinformation,pleasecontactmeimmediatelybyemail.Myemailaccountis***,andTel.is***,andFaxis+***.Yourssincerely,Detailedresponsetoreviewer'scommentsandAsianEditor'sadviceOverallthecommentshavebeenfair,encouragingandconstructive.Wehavelearnedmuchfromit.Althoughthereviewer'scommentsaregenerallypositive,wehavecarefullyproofreadthemanuscriptandedititasfollowing.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)Besidestheabovechanges,wehavecorrectedsomeexpressionerrors.Thankyouverymuchfortheexcellentandprofessionalrevisionofourmanuscript.3.Themanuscriptisrevisedsubmission(XXX—XXXX)withnewlineandpagenumbersinthetext,somegrammarandspellingerrorshadalsobeencorrected.Furthermore,therelevantregulationshadbeenmadeintheoriginalmanuscriptaccordingtothecommentsofreviewers,andthemajorrevisedportionsweremarkedinredbold.Wealsorespondedpointbypointtoeachreviewercommentsaslistedbelow,alongwithaclearindicationofthelocationoftherevision.Hopethesewillmakeitmoreacceptableforpublication.ListofMajor

Changes:1) 2) 3) Response

to

Reviewers:1) 2) 3) ResponsetoReviewerXXWeverymuchappreciatethecarefulreadingofourmanuscriptandvaluablesuggestionsofthereviewer.Wehavecarefullyconsideredthecommentsandhaverevisedthemanuscriptaccordingly.Thecommentscanbesummarizedasfollows:1)XX2)XXDetailedresponses])XX2)XX4.DeareditorXXWehavereceivedthecommentsonourmanuscriptentitled“XX”byXX.Accordingtothecommentsofthereviewers,wehaverevisedourmanuscript.Therevisedmanuscriptandthedetailedresponsestothecommentsoftheonereviewerareattached.Sincerelyyours,XX5.ResponsetoReviewerAReviewerAverykindlycontactedmedirectly,andrevealedhimselftobeProfessorDr.Hans-GeorgGeissleroftheUniversityofLeipzig.IwrotehimageneralresponsetobothreviewsinJanuary2000,followedbytheseresponsestospecificpoints,bothhisown,andthoseoftheotherreviewer.ResponsetoSpecificPointsWhatfollowsisabriefandcursorydiscussionofthevariousissuesraisedbyyourselfandtheotherreviewer.Ifyoushouldreviseyourjudgmentofthevalidityofthetheory,thesepointswillbeaddressedatgreaterlengthinanewversionofthepaperthatIwouldresubmittoPsychologicalReview.ResponsetoSpecificPoints-ReviewerA:Inpart⑴ofyourcritiquethemajorcomplaintisthatnotheoryispresented,whichwasdiscussedabove.Youcontinue?"Regrettably,notmuchattentionisdrawntospecificdifferencesbetweenthechosenexamplesthatwouldbenecessarytopinpointspecificitiesofperceptionmoreprecisely",and〃ifperceptualsystems,assuggested,hler(KindeedactonthebasisofHR,theremustbemanymorespecificconstraintsinvolvedtoensurespecial'veridicality'propertiesoftheperceptualoutcome",and〃thedifficultanalyticproblemsofconcretemodelingofperceptionarenoteventouched.Themodelaspresentedisnotamodelofvisionorauditionoranyotherparticularmodality,butisageneralmodeltoconfrontthealternativeneuralreceptivefieldparadigm,althoughexamplesfromvisualperceptionareusedtoexemplifytheprinciplesdiscussed.Themorespecificvisualmodelwassubmittedelsewhere,intheOrientationalHarmonicmodel,whereIshowedhowharmonicresonanceaccountsforspecificvisualillusoryeffects.Asdiscussedabove,theattempthereistoproposeageneralprincipleofneurocomputation,ratherthanaspecificmodelofvisual,auditory,oranyotherspecificsensorymodality.Again,whatIamproposingisaparadigmratherthanatheory,i.e.analternativeprincipleofneurocomputationwithspecificanduniqueproperties,asanalternativetotheneurondoctrineparadigmofthespatialreceptivefield.Ifthispaperiseventuallyacceptedforpublication,thenIwillresubmitmypapersonvisualillusoryphenomena,referringtothispapertojustifytheuseoftheunconventionalharmonicresonancemechanism.Inpart⑵(a)ofyourcritiqueyousay"itisnotclarifiedwhetherthepostulatedpropertiesofGestaltsactuallyfollowfromthisdefinitionorpartlyderivefromadditionalconstraints.andIdoubtthatanyofthereviewedexamplesforHRcantreatjustthecaseofhler:(1961,p.7)“Humanexperienceinthephenomenologicalsensecannotyetbetreatedwithourmostreliablemethods;andwhendealingwithit,wemaybeforcedtoformnewconceptswhichatfirst,willoftenbeabitvague."WolfgangKthedogcitedtodemonstrate'emergence'.Forthisahierarchyrelationisneeded."TheprincipleofemergenceinGestalttheoryisaverydifficultconcepttoexpressinunambiguousterms,andthedogpicturewaspresentedtoillustratethisratherelusiveconceptwithaconcreteexample.IdonotsuggestthatHRasproposedinthispapercanaddressthedogpictureassuch,sincethisisspecificallyavisualproblem,andtheHRmodelaspresentedisnotavisualmodel.Rather,Iproposethatthefeaturedetectionparadigmcannotinprinciplehandlethiskindofambiguity,becausethelocalfeaturesdonotindividuallycontaintheinformationnecessarytodistinguishsignificantfrominsignificantedges.ThesolutionoftheHRapproachtovisualambiguityisexplainedinthe

paperin thesectionon Recognition by

Reification" (p. 15-17)inwhich Ipropose that

recognition is notsimplya matterof the

identificationoffeaturesintheinput,i.e.bythe"lightingup"ofahigherlevelfeaturenode,butitinvolvesasimultaneousabstractionandreification,inwhichthehigherlevelfeaturenodereifiesitsparticularpatternbackattheinputlevel,modulatedbytheexactpatternoftheinput.

Iappealtothereadertoseethereifiedformofthedogasperceivededgesandsurfacesthatarenotpresentintheinputstimulus,asevidenceforthisreificationinperception,whichappearsatthesametimethattherecognitionoccurs.Theremarkablepropertyofthisreificationisthatthedogappearsnotasanimageofacanonical,orprototypicaldog,butasadogperceptthatiswarpedtotheexactpostureandconfigurationallowedbytheinput,asobservedinthesubjectiveexperienceofthedogpicture.Thisexplanationissubjecttoyourcriticisminyourgeneralcomments,that"theauthordemonstratesmoreinsightthanexplicitlystatedinassumptionsanddrawnconclusions".Icanonlysaythat,inKuhn'swords,sometimesitisonlypersonalandinarticulateaestheticconsiderationsthatcanbeusedtomakethecase.InthewordsofWolfgangK?hler:(1961,p.7)"Humanexperienceinthephenomenologicalsensecannotyetbetreatedwithourmostreliablemethods;andwhendealingwithit,wemaybeforcedtoformnewconceptswhichatfirst,willoftenbeabitvague."WolfgangK?hler(K?hler1923p.64)"Naturalsciencescontinuallyadvanceexplanatoryhyptotheses,whichcannotbeverifiedbydirectobservationatthetimewhentheyareformednorforalongtimethereafter.OfsuchakindwereAmpere'stheoryofmagnetism,thekinetictheoryofgases,theelectronictheory,thehypothesisofatomicdisintegrationinthetheoryofradioactivity.Someoftheseassumptionshavesincebeenverifiedbydirectobservation,orhaveatleastcomeclosetosuchdirectverification;

othersarestillfarremovedfromit.Butphysicsandchemistrywouldhavebeencondemnedtoapermanentembryonicstatehadtheyabstainedfromsuchhypotheses;theirdevelopmentseemsratherlikeacontinuouseffortsteadilytoshortentherestofthewaytotheverificationofhypotheseswhichsurvivethisprocess"Insection⑵(b)ofyourcritiqueyoucomplainthat"thereisnoseriousdiscussionofpossiblealternatives",andyoumentionNeo-Gibsonianapproaches,PDP,Grossberg'sARTmodelandPribram'sholographictheory.Inthenextversionofthepaperthisomissionwillbecorrected,approximatelyasfollows.Gibson'suseofthetermresonanceisreallyametaphoricaldevice,sinceGibsonoffersnomechanismsoranalogiesofperceptualprocesses,butmerelysuggeststhatthereisatwo-wayflowofinformation(resonance)betweenbehaviorandtheenvironment.Thisisreallymerelyametaphor,ratherthanamodel.ThePDPapproachdoesaddresstheissueofemergence,butsincethebasiccomputationalunitoftheneuralnetworkmodelisahard-wiredreceptivefield,thistheorysuffersallthelimitationsofatemplatetheory.ThesameholdsforGrossberg's""AdaptiveResonanceTheory",whichalsousesthewordresonancemetaphoricallytosuggestabottom-uptop-downmatching,butinGrossberg'smodelthatmatchingisactuallyperformedbyreceptivefields,orspatialtemplates.TheARTmodeldemonstratesthelimitationsofthisapproach.Fortheonlywaythatahigher-leveldetector,or〃F2node",canexhibitgeneralizationtodifferentinputpatterns,isforittohavesynapticweightstoallofthepatternstowhichitresponds.Inessence,thepatternofsynapticweightsisasuperpositionorblurringtogetherofallofthepossibleinputpatternstowhichtheF2nodeshouldrespond.Intop-downprimingmodethereforethatF2nodewould"print"thatsameblurredpatternbackatthelower"F1node"level,activatingallofthepossiblepatternstowhichthatF2nodeistunedtorespond.ForexampleifanARTmodelweretrainedtorespondtoan"X"-shapedfeaturepresentedatallpossibleorientations,top-downprimingofthisnodeaftertrainingwould“print"apatternofallthoseX-shapedfeaturesatallorientationssuperimposed,whichissimplyanamorphousblob.Infact,thatsamenodewouldrespondevenbettertoablobfeaturethantoanysingleXfeature.InthepresenceofapartialorambiguousX-likepatternpresentedataparticularorientation,theARTmodelcouldnotcompletethatpatternspecifictoitsorientation.TheHRmodelontheotherhandoffersadifferentanduniqueprincipleofrepresentation,inwhichtop-downactivationofthehigherlevelnodecancompleteapartialorambiguousinputpatterninthespecificorientationatwhichitappears,butthatsameprimingwouldcompletethepatterndifferentlyifitappearedinadifferentorientation.Thisgeneralizationinrecognition,butspecificationincompletion,isapropertythatisuniquetotheharmonicresonancerepresentation.Kuhnobservesthattheoldparadigmcanalwaysbereformulatedtoaccountforanyparticularphenomenonaddressedbythenewparadigm,justasthePtolomaicearthcenteredcosmologycouldaccountforthemotionsoftheplanetstoarbitraryprecision,givenenoughnestedcyclesandepicyclesofthecrystalspheres.Similarly,aconventionalneuralnetworkmodelcanalwaysbecontrivedtoexhibitthesamefunctionalbehaviorofgeneralizedrecognitionbutspecificcompletiondescribedabove,butonlybypostulatinganimplausiblearrangementofspatialreceptivefields.InthiscasethatwouldrequirespecificX-featuretemplatesappliedtotheinputateverypossibleorientation,anyoneofwhichcanstimulateasinglerotation-invariantX-featurenode,toaccountforbottom-uprotationinvarianceinrecognition.Howeverinordertoalsoaccountfortop-downcompletionspecifictoorientation,top-downactivationofthehigher-levelinvariantnodewouldhavetofeedbackdowntoasetoftopdownprojectionnodes,eachofwhichisequippedwithanX-shapedprojectivetemplateataparticularorientation,abletoprojectacompleteX-shapedpatternontheinputfield.Butthetopdowncompletionmustselectonlythespecificorientationthatbestmatchesthepatternpresentintheinput,andcompletethepatternonlyatthatbestmatchingorientation.ThissystemthereforerequirestwocompletesetsofX-featurereceptivefieldsortemplates,onesetforbottom-uprecognitionandtheothersetfortop-downcompletion,eachsetcontainingX-featuretemplatesateverypossibleorientation,andsimilarsetsofreceptivefieldswouldberequiredfortherecognitionofothershapedpatternssuchas〃T〃and〃V〃features.Thisrepresentsa/"bruteforce"approachtoachievinginvariance,whichalthoughperhapsmarginallyplausibleinthisspecificexample,iscompletelyimplausibleasageneralprincipleofoperationofneurocomputation,giventhefactthatinvarianceappearstobesofundamentalapropertyofhumanandanimalperception.However,asKuhnalsoobserves,afactorsuchasneuralplausibilityisitselfa

personalandinarticulateaestheticconsideration

thatcannotbedeterminedunambiguouslybythe

evaluativeprocedurescharacteristicofnormal

science.WithregardtoPribramsHolographictheory,

theconceptofahologramiscloselyrelatedtoa

standingwavemodel,sinceittooworksbyinterferenceofwaveforms.Thedifferenceisthatthehologramis/"frozenintime"likeaphotograph,andthereforedoesnotexhibitthetolerancetoelasticdeformationoftheinput,asdoesthestandingwavemodel.Neitherdoesthehologramexhibitrotationinvarianceasdoesthestandingwaveinacircular-symmetricsystem.Howeverhologramscaninprinciplebeconstructedofdynamicstandingwaves,asPribramhimselfsuggests,andthisconceptthenbecomesaharmonicresonancetheory.ThepresentproposalisthereforecloselyrelatedtoPribram'sapproach,whichwillbediscussedinthenextversionofthepaper.Thediscussionofalternativemodelswasindeedasignificantomissionintheversionofthepaperyoureviewed,thenextversionwillincludesuchadiscussion,whichinturnwillhelptoclarifytheoperationalprinciplesoftheHRtheory,anddistinguishitfromalternativeapproaches.Insection⑶ofyourcritiqueyouproposethat“notionslikethereceptivefieldconceptareapproximatedescriptionsoffacts”,andyouproposeadualisticapproachinvolvingtwoformsofrepresentationsinthebrainwhichareofdifferentandcomplementarynature.WhileIdonotdisputetheanatomicalfactsoftheshapesofneuronandthefunctionofsynapses,ithasneverbeendemonstratedthataneuronactuallyoperatesasaspatialtemplate,thattheoryaroseasanexplanationfortheneurophysiologicalresponseof?"featuredetector"cellsinthecortex.Howeverthenoisystochasticnatureoftheneuralresponse,anditsverybroadtuningfunctionseemtoargueagainstthisview.Myownhunchisthatthefeaturedetectorbehaviorisitselfastandingwavephenomenon,whichisconsistentwiththefactthattheresponsefunctionofV1corticalneuronsresemblesaGaborfunction,whichisitselfawavelet.Howeverthisissueisorthogonaltomymainpoint,whichisthatwhetherornotsomeneuronsbehaveasspatialtemplates,thelimitationsofatemplatetheorysuggestthatthe

Gestaltpropertiesofperception(emergence,invariance,reification,multistability)cannotbeaccountedforinthatmanner,andthatsomeothersignificantprincipleofcomputationmustbeinvokedtoaccountfortheGestaltpropertiesofperception.Insection(4)youcomplainthatthereisnodiscussionofthelimitationsinthescopeofHR.Forexamplemerelytoreflectoutsiderealitydoesnotcontributetotheproblemofconsciousawarenessoftheseobjects.HoweverthisissueisnotuniquetoHR,itisageneralphilosophicalissuethatappliesjustaswelltothealternativeNeuronDoctrinemodel.ButtheNeurondoctrineitselfcannotevenplausiblyaccountforthereflectionofoutsiderealityinaninternalrepresentation,duetotheproblemsofemergence,reification,andinvariance,whichiswhytheNeuronDoctrinesuggestsamoreabstractedconceptofvisualrepresentation,inwhichthevisualexperienceisencodedinafarmoreabstractedandabbreviatedform.ThereforealthoughHRdoesnot

solvethe〃problemofconsciousness〃completely,itisonestepclosertoasolutionthanthealternative.Thephilosophicalissueofconsciousnesshoweverisbeyondthescopeofthispaper,whichisatheoryofneuralrepresentation,ratherthanaphilosophicalpaper.Iencloseacopyofmybook,""TheWorldInYourHead”,whichaddressesthesephilosophical issuesmore

extensively.ProfessorGeissler'sResponseProfessorGeisslerkindlyrespondedtomyletterinApril2000tosaythatheagreedwithnearlyeverythingIhadsaid.Hethengavemeadviceaboutthepresentationoftheidea.HerecommendedthatIbeginbydescribingtheNeuronDoctrineindetail,andthenpointoutthelimitationsoftheideabeforepresentingtheHarmonicResonancetheoryasanalternative.Ire-wrotethepaperfollowingGeissler'sadvice,andIincludedsomeideasfromtheaboveletterinthenewversionofthepaper.Howeveritwastoolatetoresubmititto

PsychologicalReviewsincetheeditorwhowashandlingthepaperwasleaving.Furthermore,IambecomingconvincedthatthepropermediumforpresentingradicallynewanddifferenttheoriesistheopenpeerreviewformatoftheBehavioralandBrainSciencesjournal,whichiswhereIsubmittedtherevisedversionofthispaper.6.DearDr.S.Heller,Attachedpleasetherevisedmanuscript/"AGroup-DecisionApproachforEvaluati