This third version of the manuscript is much more effective. The introduction is well constructed, defining what Jomon ceramics are, why they are interesting for research into perception in archaeology and in what contexts the SDM method has already been applied. The section on the research question provides a clear understanding of what is at stake in this article. In addition, the conclusion has been rewritten to leave more room for a description of the results, what they contribute to research into perception and how they might be used, as well as the method, in the future.
The addition of illustrations of the different pots used in the experiment enables the reader to understand and follow the participants' responses. The presence of the data and analysis files also means that the methodology can be followed with precision.
In conclusion, the article is coherent from beginning to end, clear and precise thanks to the addition of numerous references and I think this paper can now be accepted (I just noticed a few minor typos like double spaces).

The authors have addressed most of the issues raised in the previous review. The introduction now recontextualises the project in the context of archaeological research and provides a better understanding of the aims of this paper. The new section on the issues also provides a clearer understanding of the aims of the study. I also appreciate the improvement in the presentation of the experimental protocol.

Some parts of the paper are still a bit blurry. The part Future Sudies is written as if all the different analysis that it presents are already done and I don't really understand why they are then "future" studies. I also think it's a problem that this section is more developed than the discussion section. The entire article would also benefit from proofreading by a native English speaker. There are some problems with the position of the figures but I am sure that this will be fixed on a later stage.

There were no supplements with this new submission, I would really like to have a display of the different pots with their names to be able to understand the results and clearly see which ones are the Okinohara and Umataka potteries.

In conclusion, with the explanation of a research question, the project described here is even more interesting. Once again I think that the methodology developed to allow a group of participants to interact with an archaeological object and then record there impression are really novative and could contribute a lot to the study of perception and cognitive archaeology. The minor suggestions described above would help to make it clearer for everyone.

Summary:

Title and Abstract

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Results

Discussion

Strengths:

Innovative Approach: The integration of MR technology (Microsoft HoloLens) for viewing 3D models of pottery is novel and valuable, offering new insights into visitor engagement with ancient artifacts. This approach allows for a more immersive and interactive experience compared to traditional museum exhibits.
Methodological Rigour: The application of the Semantic Differential Method (SD) and factor analysis is sound. The use of a quantitative approach to extract sensory impressions from museum visitors is robust and clearly explained, providing reliable data for analysis.
Clear Results: The factor analysis clearly identifies key factors such as "vigor," "attractiveness," and "surface smoothness," and the variations among the pottery types are presented effectively. These findings offer significant insights into how modern audiences perceive ancient pottery styles.
Interdisciplinary Relevance: The manuscript bridges archaeology, cognitive science, and museum studies, making it relevant across several fields. The use of technology to understand the sensory impressions of museum visitors is a timely contribution, especially as more museums adopt digital tools to enhance visitor experiences.

Areas for Improvement:

Conclusion:

Issue: The manuscript lacks a dedicated conclusion. This is a critical omission, as the conclusion should tie together the key findings and underscore the implications of the research.
Recommendation: The authors should include a conclusion that summarizes the major findings (e.g., the prominence of "vigor" and "attractiveness" in pottery impressions), reflects on the broader significance of using MR in museum contexts, and highlights the contribution of this study to our understanding of sensory impressions in archaeological and cultural artifacts.

Future Research Directions:

Issue: The manuscript touches briefly on future studies but lacks depth in outlining specific research directions.
Recommendation: The authors could expand the section on future research by:Elaborating on how deep learning models could be used to further explore sensory and cognitive responses to pottery, as mentioned in section a of the future studies.
Exploring how gaze-tracking technologies like Apple Vision Pro could provide additional insights into visitor engagement and object perception.
Suggesting broader applications of these methodologies to other types of artifacts or museum collections, thereby expanding the study's relevance beyond Jomon pottery.

References:

Issue: The current reference list is strong but could be broadened to include more recent studies on MR technologies in museums and psychological research on art and sensory perception.
Recommendation: Incorporating recent literature on the integration of digital technologies in museums, visitor behavior, and modern sensory studies would strengthen the theoretical foundation of the manuscript and connect it more firmly with current debates in the field.

Linking Results to Broader Discussions:

Issue: The results are well-presented, but the manuscript could do more to situate these findings within broader theoretical discussions, such as human cognitive evolution, cultural transmission, and the role of artifacts in social memory.
Recommendation: Expanding the discussion to link the sensory impressions of modern visitors with ancient cognitive processes and spatial cognition, as introduced by Kobayashi and others, would deepen the impact of the paper. Drawing connections between the Jomon people's use of pottery and how their cognitive structures might be understood through sensory impressions would provide a richer cultural and anthropological context.

Minor Revisions:

Clarification of Terms: Some technical terms, such as "Semantic Differential Method" and "factor analysis," could be explained more clearly for readers who may not be familiar with these methodologies.
Figure Labels: Ensure that all figures (e.g., scree plots and factor score variations) are clearly labeled and referenced in the text, enhancing the reader's ability to follow the analysis.

Conclusion:

The paper presents a new type of analysis based on viewing 3D models and sensory response, which is very interesting and could contribute a lot to the study of perception and cognitive response to material culture. The methodology developed to allow a group of participants to interact with an archaeological object is very interesting. The idea of asking them about their feelings and emotions during these interactions is completely innovative.
However, it lacks a clear focus and a closer link to current archaeological research. While the methodology section goes into detail about the operation and technical aspects of the equipment used to display the 3D models, it is very light on the experimental protocol itself and the statistical analyses carried out.
Finally, the discussion tries to relate the experiment to the cultural heritage context, but doesn't clearly express what the results mean for the museums that seem to be the target of the experiment. This lack of questioning makes it difficult to fully evaluate the results.
The focus of the paper needs to be better defined. Is it an archaeological study of the perception of material culture or a test for Microsoft HoloLens?

    • Title and abstract 
        ◦ Does the title clearly reflect the content of the article? [X] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don't know 
        ◦ Does the abstract present the main findings of the study? [X] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know 

    • Introduction 
        ◦ Are the research questions/hypotheses/predictions clearly presented? [ ] Yes, [X] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know 

The research question is not clearly defined in the introduction. Only the last sentence of the introduction could be seen as a research question, but it only states that it is of interest to study "the sensory impressions of modern individuals". What is the aim of the project? What are the research hypotheses? What is the archaeological significance of this study? What is the subject of the work? Some elements of the answer are present in the conclusion, such as the link with museum display, but this needs to be developed in the introduction.

 ◦ Does the introduction build on relevant research in the field? [ ] Yes, [X] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know 

The Jomon pottery is nicely recontextualised in the first two paragraphs of the introduction, but its use is not defined until the conclusion. I would also have liked to see some good quality images of them. There are only some poor quality 3D models in the appendix. 
            The theoretical background is quickly established with the notion of spatial cognition, which could be described a bit more and linked to the project research. It might be interesting to link the paper to some of the previous research in archaeology on perception, cognition and material culture, such as (but it depends on the research question): 

  • Bruner, E., 2023. Cognitive Archaeology, Body Cognition, and the Evolution of Visuospatial Perception. Elsevier Science & Technology, San Diego, UNITED STATES.
                • Knappett, C., Malafouris, L. (Eds.), 2008. Material Agency: Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach. Springer, New York.
                • Constant, A., Tschantz, A.D.D., Millidge, B., Criado-Boado, F., Martinez, L.M., Müeller, J., Clark, A., 2021. The Acquisition of Culturally Patterned Attention Styles Under Active Inference. Front Neurorobot 15, 729665. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2021.729665

 • Materials and methods 
        ◦ Are the methods and analyses sufficiently detailed to allow replication by other researchers? [ ] Yes, [X] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know 

It is not possible to replicate the analysis. The authors have only provided the data with no explanatory metadata (what do the numbers mean?) and in a format that is difficult to analyse statistically (there seems to be too much different information per column). Furthermore, there is no script or steps to reproduce the calculations. All we know is that factor analysis was used.

 ◦ Are the methods and statistical analyses appropriate and well described? [ ] Yes, [X] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know 

The authors spend a lot of time describing the equipment used and all its features, although it doesn't seem to be the most important part of the analysis. If I understand correctly, this HoloLens was used to allow the participant to see the ceramics in the environment, but the main focus of the analysis is their answers to a series of questions described as "The Semantic Differential Method". The explanation of this method is really light and the paper could benefit from more details about it and how the reader can understand the data submitted in relation to this survey. I don't think it is necessary to describe all the sensors on the equipment unless they are part of the results, which they don't seem to be.
The description of the experimental protocol is also limited. How were the participants selected? What is their background? How long were they able to interact with the objects? How were colour blind or visually impaired people treated?

• Results 
        ◦ In the case of negative results, is there a statistical power analysis (or an adequate Bayesian analysis or equivalence testing)? [ ] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know 

        ◦ Are the results described and interpreted correctly? [X] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know 

The results are well described and illustrated, but there may be a lack of explanation. How are Tables 2 and 3 to be understood? What is a load score?

 • Discussion 
        ◦ Have the authors appropriately emphasized the strengths and limitations of their study/theory/methods/argument? [ ] Yes, [X] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know 

These elements are not really part of the discussion. It focuses more on the use of digital objects in the cultural heritage environment than on a real interpretation of the results. This is mainly due to a lack of questions. As the purpose of the study is not defined, it is not possible to argue or conclude on a question.

This section also lacks references. In fact, there are only 7 in the whole article, two of which are links to the Microsoft website and one of which doesn't work.

 ◦ Are the conclusions adequately supported by the results (without overstating the implications of the findings)? [X] Yes, [] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know 

Review of paper title: Analysis of Sensory Impression Factor Structures of Jomon Potteries through a Semantic Differential Method Experiment Utilizing 3D Models on Microsoft HoloLens

Summary: The paper presents a study on the sensory impressions of Jomon pottery, particularly flame-like pots, using a Semantic Differential Method experiment with 3D models viewed through Microsoft HoloLens. The research investigates how modern viewers perceive these ancient artefacts, considering factors like "vigor," "attractiveness," "surface smoothness," and "weight." The study is thorough in its approach, involving a sample of 73 participants who provided feedback on 16 sensory adjectives. The use of mixed reality (MR) technology in this context is innovative and adds a unique dimension to the study of cultural heritage.

Strengths:

Innovative Methodology: The use of Microsoft HoloLens to create 3D holograms of Jomon pottery and assess sensory impressions is an innovative application of MR technology. This approach provides a new way of engaging with ancient artefacts, making the study highly relevant in the context of digital heritage and museum studies.
Comprehensive Analysis: The paper employs a robust statistical approach, using factor analysis and analysis of variance to extract and interpret the sensory impression factors. The identification of distinct factors like "vigor," "attractiveness," and "surface smoothness" offers a clear understanding of how participants perceive different pottery types.
Cultural and Historical Relevance: The paper successfully ties the sensory impressions of the pottery to their cultural and historical significance, particularly in the context of the Jomon period. This adds depth to the study and makes it relevant to both archaeologists and those interested in cultural heritage.
Technological Integration: The detailed explanation of the HoloLens hardware and its application in the experiment adds a valuable technical dimension to the paper. It demonstrates the potential of MR technology in museum settings, offering practical insights for future applications.


Areas for Improvement:

Clarity in Methodology: While the methodology is innovative, the description of the Semantic Differential Method could be more detailed for readers unfamiliar with this approach. A clearer explanation of how the adjectives were selected and how they relate to the sensory impressions of the pottery would enhance the paper's accessibility.
Discussion on Limitations: The paper would benefit from a more explicit discussion of the limitations of the study. For example, the sample size and the demographic composition of the participants could impact the generalizability of the findings. Addressing these aspects would strengthen the validity of the conclusions drawn.
Investigating the Role of Visual and Aesthetic Characteristics: Future studies should explore how the visual and aesthetic characteristics of MR experiences influence visitor enjoyment and emotional responses in museums. Does the beauty of the MR experience enhance the overall visit, or is its ability to evoke emotions typically associated with physical objects more significant? Additionally, comparing these findings with visitors' reactions to seeing the physical objects themselves would provide insights into the unique contributions of MR to art appreciation.
Specific elements for improvement: see the commented version of the paper.  
Overall Evaluation:

The paper is a significant contribution to the field of digital heritage and the study of Jomon pottery. It introduces a novel application of MR technology, offering valuable insights into how modern viewers perceive ancient artifacts. With some improvements in clarity and depth, particularly in the discussion of benefits of the technology, limitations and future directions, the paper could have a substantial impact on both academic research and practical applications in museums.

Recommendation: Accept with minor revisions.