Many thanks for the great paper. While the comments are extensive, I would like to reiterate that the paper is appropriate for publication and that these comments are merely to produce an even stronger paper.

When accepted a technical demo or a video must be presented in the conference.

Referring to page 11: While technical documentation is relevant to this paper, still it is not important to have details unless they are enough to construct a similar experiment. I strongly suggest to replace the section with a general comparison between the project and similar installations and the difference in application.

Moreover, the attention should be drawn to the reported experience of subjects who interacted with this installation as it is a very interesting and might give an insight into their experience.

There were several medical applications suggested as way of utilising this installation, and I would suggest that the author support these with references as it is one aspect that requires more of an empirical study than artistic one.
