Please help me reply to the following review comments：Reviewing 2 Comments to the Author This surely offers an overview on a novel solution for AR in spinal surgery navigation Overall the paper is str

Response to Reviewer 2:

Thank you for your comments and suggestions on our paper. We appreciate your feedback and will address each of your points below:

1. Introduction: We agree with your suggestion to split the introduction into separate sections for a short intro, background, and proposed solution. This will help clarify the rationale of our work, and we will make this change accordingly.

2. Graph readability: We acknowledge your comment about the readability of the graphs, especially Fig. 13. We will make improvements to enhance the clarity and intuitiveness of the figures for better understanding.

3. Ethical issues: We apologize for the confusion caused by the reference to the Helsinki Declaration without a specific protocol. We will revise the text to provide a clearer explanation of the ethical considerations and ensure that it aligns with both national and international policies.

4. Experimental design: We appreciate your observation regarding the lack of description of statistical methods and their assumptions. We will include a detailed explanation of the statistical methods used in our experimental design to improve the paper.

Response to Reviewer 3:

Thank you for your comments on our paper. We appreciate your feedback and will address each of your points below:

1. Title and 2D/3D registration description: We apologize for any confusion caused by the title. We understand that it does not accurately represent the entire system described in the paper. We will revise the title to better reflect the content. Additionally, we acknowledge your comment about the lack of details in the 2.3 section on 2D/3D registration. We will provide more information to better explain how it works.

2. AR visualization and system description: We apologize for any errors and lack of details in the paper. We will revise the content to ensure that it is well-written, includes necessary details, and is free from errors. We appreciate your feedback on the clinical relevance of the result, and we will consider this in our revisions.

3. Detailed comments: We appreciate your feedback on the introduction and will revise the sentence regarding navigation systems' reliance on visual spatial skills. We apologize for the lack of linking between the sentence on ionizing radiation and the surrounding content and will make necessary adjustments. We also appreciate your comment on the ArUco markers and will clarify their selection process in the paper.

4. Methods: We apologize for the missing equation and variables in paragraph 2.1 and will include them in the revised version. We will also address your concerns about the caption of Fig. 3 and provide a clear explanation of the "marker entity." Regarding the equation 2, we will revise the description to accurately represent the projection equation rather than the PnP tracking algorithm. We understand your concerns about the lack of clarity in the 2D/3D registration method, and we will expand on the Powell algorithm and clarify the usage of the ICP algorithm in our revised version. We appreciate your comment on the need for Equation 7, and we will provide a better explanation in the paper.

5. Experiments: We apologize for any confusion caused by the determination of TRE using a planar marker without a gold standard tracking system. We will address this concern and provide a clearer explanation of the experiment setup in the revised version.

Once again, we thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We will incorporate them into our paper to improve its quality and clarity.