如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见

1、v1.0可编辑可修改望对大家有帮助1.Dear Prof. XXXX,Thank you very much for your letter and the comme nts from the referees aboutour paper submitted to XXXX (MS Number XXXX).Wehave checked the manuscript and revised it according to the comments. Wesubmithere the revised manu script as well as a list of cha nges.If y

2、ou have any question about this paper, please don t hesitate to let meknow.Sin cerely yours,Dr. XXXXResp onse to Reviewer 1:Thanks for your comme nts on our paper. We have revised our paper accordi ng to your comme nts: 1. XXXXXXX 2. XXXXXXXDear Professor *2.1v1.0可编辑可修改1)3Re: An * Rotati ng Rigid-fl

3、exible Coupled System (No.: JSV-D-06-*) by *Many tha nks for your email of 24 Jun 2006, regardi ng the revisi on and adviceof the above paper in JSV. Overall the comments have been fair,encouraging and con structive. We have lear ned much from it.After carefully study ing the reviewer comments and y

4、our advice, we have made corresp onding cha nges to the paper. Our resp onse of the comme nts is en closed.If you n eed any other in formati on, please con tact me immediately by email. My email acco unt is *, and *, and Fax is +*.Yours sincerely,Detailed response to reviewer s comments and Asian Ed

5、itor s adviceOverall the comme nts have bee n fair, en couragi ng and con structive. We have learned much from it. Although the reviewer s comme nts are gen erally positive, we have carefully proofread the manuscript and edit it as following.(1)(5)Besides the above cha nges, we have corrected some e

6、xpressi on errors.Thank you very much for the excellentand professionalrevisionof ourmanu script.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 releva nt regulati ons had bee n

7、 made in the origi nalmanu scriptaccord ing to the comme nts of reviewers, and the major revised porti ons were marked in red bold. We also responded point by point to each reviewer comments as listed below, along with a clear indicationof the locationof the revision.Hope these will make it more acc

8、eptable for publicati on.List of Major Chan ges:1) 2) 3) Resp onse to Reviewers:2)3)Resp onse to Reviewer XXWe very much appreciate the careful readi ng of our manu script and valuablesuggestions of the reviewer. Wehave carefullyconsidered the comments and haverevised the manu script accord in gly.T

9、he comme nts can be summarized as follows:1) XX2) XXDetailed resp on ses1) XX2) XX4.Dear editor XXWehave received the comments on our manuscript entitled“XX by XX. Accordingto the comme nts of the reviewers, we have revised our manu script. The revised manu script and the detailed resp on ses to the

10、 comme nts of the one reviewer are attached.v1.0可编辑可修改Sin cerely yours,XX5.Resp onse to Reviewer AReviewer A very kindlycontactedme directly, and revealed himself to beProfessor Dr. Hans-Georg Geissler of the University of Leipzig. I wrote him agen eral resp onse to both reviews in January 2000, fol

11、lowed by these resp on sesto specific poin ts, both his own, and those of the other reviewer .Resp onse to Specific PointsWhat follows is a brief and cursory discussi on of the various issues raised by yourself and the other reviewer. If you should revise your judgme nt of the validity of the theory

12、, these points will be addressed at greater length in a new vers ion of the paper that I would resubmit to Psychological Review.Resp onse to Specific Poin ts- Reviewer A:In part (1) of your critique the major complaint is that no theory is presented, which was discussed above. You continue Regrettab

13、ly, not muchattentionis drawnto specific differe nces betwee n the chose n examples that would be n ecessary to pinpoint specificities of perception more precisely, and if perceptual systems, as suggested, hler (K in deed act on the basis of HR, there must be many more specific con stra ints in volv

14、ed to en sure special veridicality properties of the perceptual outcome, and the difficultanalyticproblems of concretemodeli ng of percepti on are not eve n touched. The model as prese nted is not a model of visi on or auditi on or any other particular modality, but is a gen eral model to confront t

15、he alter native n eural 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 harm onic resonance acco unts for specific visual

16、 illusory effects. As discussed above, the attempt here is to propose a general principle of neurocomputation, rather thana specific model of visual,auditory, or any other specific sensory modality. Again, what I am proposing is a paradigm rather tha n a theory, . an alter nativepri ncipleofn euroco

17、mputati on withspecific and unique properties, as an alter nativeto theneuron doctrine paradigm of the spatial receptive field. If this paper is eve ntually accepted for publicati on, the n I will resubmit my papers on visual illusory phenomena, referring to this paper to justify the use of the unco

18、nven ti onal harm onic resonance mecha ni sm.In part (2) (a) of your critique you say it is not clarified whether the postulated properties of Gestalts actually follow from this definitionor partlyderive from additi onal con stra in ts. and I doubt that any of the reviewed examples for HR can treat

19、just the case of hler: (1961, p. 7) Human experienee in the phe nomeno logical 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 ofte n be a bit vague. Wolfga ng Kthe dog cited to dem on strateemerge nee.

20、For this a hierarchy relati onis n eeded. The prin ciple of emerge neein Gestalt theory is a very difficult con cept to express in un ambiguous terms, and the dog picture was presented to illustrate this rather elusive concept with a concrete example. I do not suggest that HRas proposed in this pape

21、r can address the dog picture as such, since this is specifically a visual problem, and theHRmodel as prese nted is not a visual model. Rather, I propose that the feature detect ion paradigm cannot in prin ciple han dle this kind of ambiguity, because the local features do not in dividually contain

22、the in formati on n ecessary to dist in guish sig nifica nt from in sig nifica ntedges. The soluti on of the HRapproach to visual ambiguity is explained in the paper in the section on Recognition by Reification (p. 15-17) in which I propose that recognition is not simply a matter of the ide ntificat

23、i on of features in the in put, . by the lighti ng up of a higher level feature no de, but it in volves a simulta neous abstraction and reification,in which the higher level feature node reifies itsparticular patter n back at the in put level, modulated by the exact patter n ofthe in put. I appeal t

24、o the reader to see the reified form of the dog as perceived edges and surfaces that are not prese nt in the in put stimulus, as evide nee 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 appea

25、rs not as an image of a canonical, or prototypical dog, but as a dog percept that is warped to the exact posture and con figurati on allowed by the in put, as observed in the subjective experie nee of the dog picture. This expla nati on is subject to your criticism in your gen eral comme nts, that t

26、he author dem on strates more in sight tha n explicitly stated in assumpti ons and draw n con clusi on s. I can only say that, in Kuhns words, sometimes it is only pers onal and in articulate aesthetic con siderati ons that can be used to make the case.In the words of Wolfgang Khler: (1961, p. 7)Hum

27、an experienee in the phenomenological sense cannotyet be treated with ourmost reliable methods; and when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new concepts which at first, will often be a bit vague.Wolfga ng Khler (Khler 1923 p. 64)Natural sciences continuallyadvanee explanatory hyptotheses, whi

28、ch cannot beverified 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 electronictheory, the hypothesis of atomic disinte grationin the theory of radioactivity. Some of these assump

29、ti ons have since bee n verified by direct obser vati on, or have at least come close to such direct verificati on; others are still far removed from it. But physics and chemistry would have been condemned to a permanent embryonic state had they abstained from such hypotheses; theirdevelopment seems

30、 rather like a continuouseffortsteadily to shorten the rest of the way to the verificationof hypotheses whichsurvive this processIn sect ion (2) (b) of your critique you compla in that there is no serious discussi on of possible alter natives,and you men ti on Neo-Gibs onian approaches,PDP, Grossber

31、gs ARTmodel 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, since Gibs on offers no mecha ni sms or an alogies of perceptual processes, but merely suggests

32、that there is a two-way flow of in formati on (res onan ce) betwee n behavior and the en vir onment. This is really merely a metaphor, rather tha n a model.The PDP approach does address the issue of emerge nee, but since the basic computationalunit of the neural network model is a hard-wired recepti

33、ve 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- dow n matchi ng, but in Grossbergs model that matchi ng is actually performed by receptive fie

34、lds, or spatial templates. The ART model dem on strates the limitati onsof this approach. For theonly way that a higher-level detector, or F2 no de, can exhibit gen eralizati on to differe nt in put patter ns, is for it to have syn aptic weights to all of the patter ns to which it resp on ds. In ess

35、e nee, the patter n of syn aptic weights is a superpositi on or blurri ng together of all of the possible in put patter ns to which the F2 node should resp ond. In top-dow n prim ing mode therefore that F2 node would pri ntthat same blurred patter n back at the lower F1 no de level,activati ngall of

36、 the possible patter ns to which that F2 node is tuned to resp ond.For example if an ART model were trained to resp ond to an X-shaped feature prese nted at all possible orie ntati ons, top-dow n prim ing of this node after training would print a patternof all those X-shaped features at allorientati

37、onssuperimposed, which is simply an amorphous blob. In fact, that samenode would resp ond eve n better to a blob feature tha n to any sin gle X feature.In the presenee of a partial or ambiguous X-like pattern presented at a particular orientation, the ART model could not complete that pattern specif

38、ic to its orie ntati on. The HR model on the other hand offers a differe nt and unique principle of representation, in which top-down activation of the higher level node can complete a partialor ambiguous in putpatter n in the specificorientationat which it appears, but that samepriming would comple

39、te the patterndifferently if it appeared in a different orientation. This generalization in recognition, but specification in completion, is a property that is unique tothe harm onic resonance represe ntati on.Kuhn observes that the old paradigm can always be reformulated to acco unt for any particu

40、lar phenomenon addressed by the new paradigm, just as the Ptolomaic earth- cen tered cosmology could acco unt for the moti ons of the pla nets to arbitrary precisi on, give n eno ugh n ested cycles and epicycles of the crystal spheres. Similarly, a conventionalneural network model can always be cont

41、rivedto exhibit the samefunctionalbehavior of generalized recognitionbut specificcompletion described above, but only by postulatingan implausiblearrangementof spatialreceptivefields. In this case that would require specific X-featuretemplates applied to the in put at every possible orie ntati on, a

42、ny one of which can stimulate a sin glerotati on-i nvaria ntX-feature no de, to acco unt forbottom-up rotation invarianee in recognition.However in order to also accountfor top-dow n completi on specific to orie ntati on, top-dow n activati on of the higher-level in varia nt node would have to feed

43、back dow n to a set of top-dow n projecti on no des, 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 in putfield. But the top-dow n completi onmust select only the specificorie ntati on that best matches t

44、he patter n prese nt in the in put, and complete the pattern only at that best matchi ng orie ntati on. This system therefore requires two complete sets of X-feature receptive fields or templates, one set for bottom-up recog niti on and the other set for top-dow n completi on, each set containing X-

45、feature templates at every possible orientation,and similar setsof receptive fields would be required for the recognition of other shapedpatter ns such as T and V features. This represe nts a brute force approach to achiev ing in varia nee, which although perhaps margi nally plausible in this specif

46、ic example, is completely implausible as a general principle of operationof n eurocomputati on,give n the fact that in varia nee appears to be so fun dame ntala property of human and animal perception. However, as Kuhn also observes, a factor such as n eural plausibility is itself a pers onal and in

47、 articulate aestheticconsiderationthat cannot be determinedunambiguouslyby theevaluative procedures characteristic of no rmal scie nee.With regard to Pribrams Holographic theory, the concept of a hologram is closely related to a standing wave model, since it too works by interfereneeof waveforms.The

48、 differe nee is that the hologram is froze n in time like a photograph, and therefore does n ot exhibit the tolera nce to elastic deformati on of the in put, as does the sta nding wave model. Neither does the hologram exhibit rotati on in varia nce as does the sta nding wave in a circular- symmetric

49、 system. However holograms can in principlebe constructedof dynamic standing waves, as Pribramhimself suggests, and this con cept the n becomes a harm onic resonance theory.The present proposal is therefore closelyrelated to Pribrams approach, whichwill be discussed in the n ext vers ion of the pape

50、r.The discussi on of alter native models was in deed a sig nifica nt omissi on in the version of the paper you reviewed, the next version will include such a discussion, which in turn will help to clarifythe operational principlesof the HRtheory,and dist in guish it from alter native approaches.In s

51、ect ion (3) of your critique you propose that no ti ons like the receptivefieldconcept are approximate descriptionsof facts, and you propose a dualisticapproach involving two forms of representations in the brain which are of differe ntand compleme ntary n ature. While I do not dispute the an atomic

52、al factsof the shapes of neuron and the functionof synapses,it has never beendem on strated that a n eur on actually operates as a spatial template, that theory arose as an explanation for the neurophysiologicalresponse of featuredetector cells in the cortex. However the noisy stochastic nature of t

53、he neural resp on se, and its very broad tuning fun cti on seem to argue aga inst this view.My own hunch is that the feature detector behavior is itself a sta nding wavephe nomenon, which is con siste nt with the fact that the resp onse function of V1cortical neurons resembles a Gabor function, whic

54、h is itself a wavelet. However this issue is orthog onal to my main point, which is that whether or not someneurons behave as spatial templates, the limitations of a template theory suggest that the Gestalt properties of perception (emergenee, invarianee,reification,multistability) cannot be acco un

55、 ted for in that mann er, and that some other significantprincipleof computation must be invoked to account for the Gestaltproperties of percepti on.In sect ion (4) you compla in that there is no discussi on of the limitati ons inthe scope of HR. For example merely to reflect outside reality does no

56、t con tribute to the problem of con scious aware ness of these objects. However this issue is not unique to HR, it is a general philosophical issue that applies just as well to the alter native Neur on Doctri ne model. But the Neur on doctri ne itself cannot eve n plausibly acco unt for the reflect

57、ion of outside reality in an internal represe ntati on,due to the problems of emerge nee, reificati on, and in varia nee,which is why the Neuron Doctrine suggests a more abstracted concept of visualrepresentation,in which the visual experienee is encoded in a far moreabstractedand abbreviated form.

58、Therefore although HR does not solve theproblem of consciousness completely, it is one step closer to a solutionthanthe alter native. The philosophical issue of con scious ness however is bey ond the scope of this paper, which is a theory of neural representation, rather thana philosophical paper. I en close a copy of my book, The World In Your Head, which addresses these philosophical issues mor