1. Paper number
#15

2. Should this paper be considered for the Best Proposal prize? (yes/no)
Yes, it is a very strong paper with an innovative concept.

3. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall organization/clarity
of the paper? (1-10)
10

4. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall project idea? (1-10)
10

5. Professionalism
9.5

6. Overall grade
9.7/10.0


* Overall, is the paper clear, concise, and well-organized?
The paper looks very professional and is well-organized with a table of contents.
Ideas are presented, explained by related research, and expanded upon.  The problem
is clearly identified: reliance on vision for tool use is insifficient.  A valid 
solution is proposed by using vibrotactile feedback.

* Does the paper meet the posted proposal guidelines?
Yes.

* How does the project idea fit within the framework of Developmental Robotics?
The project proposes extending the body of an automobile driver using vibrotactile feedback.
It is novel in the fact that it combines a new technology (the Kinect) and adds
to a body of work starting with tactile visual substitution (and other examples of 
related work given in the paper).

* Describe what you like BEST about the project idea.
Its use of the Kinect.

* Do you have any concerns about the project?
No.

* Does it seem too difficult?
No.

* Are there any major details left out?
No.

* Does the idea rely upon technologies that are not currently available?
No.

* Do you have any suggestions for improvement?
There are many grammar errors in the paper, or sentences that were malformed.  A few are
listed here:
On page 2, paragraph 3, last sentence: "types [of] feedback"
On page 3, paragraph 1, middle of para: "overwhelmed an[d] unable"
On page 3, paragraph 2, last sentence: "that learn do the same." (omit 'learn')
On page 20,: "attempt to park the driver should attempt to park" (omit 'attempt to park')
On page ,: "operators may have come to trust" (omit 'have')

* Any other comments or suggestions?
I enjoyed this report.  Very professional.  Pictures aided the content well.
Great related work.  Future work is okay, but merely contains the 
philosophy of "more sensors."