I found the article both interesting and, generally, well-structured. I have two comments on the structure, however, which the authors may wish to consider.
1) (very minor) would prefer the final comment were titled something like "A note on terminology" and possibly formatted differently. As it stands, "a note on touch saliency" sounds a bit strange to me because the whole article has been about saliency in touch, and with the formatting as is it looks like part of the Applications section.
Author's response: We took over the suggestion to change the title to "A note on terminology" and moved this item to the very end of the article.
2) I very much like the approach of introducing the concepts through visual search, and then going through the aspects of the tactile sense one by one addressing saliency, that made me feel on solid and familiar ground. However, I found the first section on "Haptic Glance" a bit jarring; I'm still not sure I know how it relates to parallel search. After the Haptic Glance section, the term gets used only once more (under "Movability") but it seems to me that the parallel search successses (the palm sweeps, for instance) constitute such glances. Do I understand correctly? If so, I would suggest starting with the visual search material and introducing Haptic Glance afterwards as a way of testing for / understanding / defining parallel search, whatever it is precisely, either in a following section or in the latter part of the Visual Search section. For clarity, then, you might title that introductory section something like "Models of haptic search", or "From visual search to haptic search", or some such.
Author's response: We removed the last sentence of the introduction (about haptic glance) and the whole section "Haptic glance". We introduce the term "haptic glance" at the end of "Haptic search for saliency". We now mention results from the haptic glance experiments at the end of the Roughness section and at the start of the Movability section.