5.txt

1. Proposal number
5

2. Should this proposal be considered for the Best Proposal prize? (yes/no)
no

3. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall organization/clarity
of the proposal? (1-10)
7

4. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall project idea? (1-10)
8

COMMENTS

* Overall, is the proposal clear, concise, and well-organized?
The flow of the paper is logical and the writing is to the point. There are points where I would like to see more elaboration about reasons for the current study. The proposal is,
however, difficult to understand at times due to the wording of phrases and due to cryptic word choices that have been made.

* Does the proposal meet the posted proposal guidelines?
Yes, the author clearly discusses the proposed idea, the previous work and the intended study. The format of the paper is not single spaced.

* How does the project idea fit within the framework of Developmental Robotics?
This project would represent a logical extension of prevoius work done int he developmental robotics laboratory at ISU.

* Describe what you like BEST about the project idea.
The ability of a robot to detect a broken button suggests that the robot has a model of the world and a model of the funciton that a button has to play in that world. I like this
idea and I think it is a useful concept. This concept needs to be explored more in the introduction and it needs to be made clearer that this is the extension to be made so that
the reader understands where the authoer is going and so that the reader understands what the author is contributing to the field.

* Describe what you like LEAST about the project idea.
If the reader does not make it clear what differentiates this project from previous work, then this proposal will continue to read as a literature review and not as an experiment.
It was difficult for me to figure out what was actually being proposed because it was brought up at the last minute without any foremention in the introduction.

* Do you have any concerns about the project?
It is not clear who all is involved in this project. The proposal lists a single author, but later the author talks about working as a team. Some of the word choice issues make
the paper less clear and make the proposal difficult to follow. The following sentence is an example of a particularly confusing piece:

"We can’t say this is a exactly sufficient and necessary, but it can do right decision in
most cases, at least in differentiating pressing among a button, a fixed board and a
moveable object."

Who is we-
What is 'this'
'but it can do right decision' - change these word choices


* Does it seem doable in the remaining time?
This seems to be an incredibly ambitious effort for a single author to take on given the constraints remaining. However, with the aid of someone familiar with developmental
robotics methods, it would be feasible.

* Does it seem too difficult?
Yes, I would strongly recommend soliciting the aid of those in the developmental robotics lab to accomplish this work. It would be unreasonable to expect the author to accomplish
this entire study on their own by the end of the term.

* Are there any major details left out?
There were several instances, espeically in the introduction, where key claims were made without the support of external research. At times the author mentioned some previous
works from class, but there was little evidence of forethought to justify claims beyond this casual examination of evidence. As it stands, this proposal is severely weakened
simply for this reason- adding this content would bolster a final project. The previous work section does a better job at backing up claims than does the introduction.

* Does the idea rely upon technologies that are not currently available?
No, there is clear evidence provided that this proposal can be accomplished within the constraints of the existing technologies and frameworks from the robotics laboratory at ISU.

* Do you have any suggestions for improvement?
Back up key claims early on so that readers get a sense that the author is aware of both the justification for the work and the previous state of the art. Do not wait until the
previous work section to cite evidence.

There are also instances where the wording is particularly difficult to understand and there are several word choice errors throughout the proposal. Eliminating gramattical and
word choice errors would increase the perceived quality of the author's work.

* Do you have any suggestions for related work that should be cited?
"While it is meaningful to learn and get the visual representation of the button so that
the model learned can be used to detect the button in visual space, it is also important
to learn and get the tactile and proprioceptive representation of the button, so that the
robot can find the buttons by tactition and proprioception."

Really, why? I want to see jusitifaction from the field of Cognitive Psychology for why visual categorization is difficult and why it is characteristic of development. The paper
goes on to claim that this is an important task in development and cites evidence from developmental robotics to suppor this claim. This is inadequate, developmental robotics
lends a useful approach for this project, but does not directly back claims that categorization is necessary for cognitive development. Perhaps the papers cited (Sukhoy and
Stoytchev, 2010) would have useful references the author could use to explore this topic.

* Any other comments or suggestions?