PCOMPBIOL-D-25-00990

Seeing what you hear: compression of rat visual perceptual space by task-irrelevant sounds

PLOS Computational Biology

Dear Dr. Zoccolan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Computational Biology. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Computational Biology's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

​Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days Oct 20 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at ploscompbiol@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pcompbiol/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Stefano Panzeri

Academic Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Daniele Marinazzo

Section Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Journal Requirements:

1) We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex. If you are providing a .tex file, please upload it under the item type u2018LaTeX Source Fileu2019 and leave your .pdf version as the item type u2018Manuscriptu2019.

2) Please upload all main figures as separate Figure files in .tif or .eps format. For more information about how to convert and format your figure files please see our guidelines: 

https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/s/figures

3) Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOSu2019s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOSu2019s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form.

Please respond directly to this email and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility. Once you have responded and addressed all other outstanding technical requirements, you may resubmit your manuscript within Editorial Manager. 

Potential Copyright Issues:

i) Figures 1A, and 1B. Please confirm whether you drew the images / clip-art within the figure panels by hand. If you did not draw the images, please provide (a) a link to the source of the images or icons and their license / terms of use; or (b) written permission from the copyright holder to publish the images or icons under our CC BY 4.0 license. Alternatively, you may replace the images with open source alternatives. See these open source resources you may use to replace images / clip-art:

- https://commons.wikimedia.org

- https://openclipart.org/.

4) Thank you for stating "No competing interests to disclose." Please modify your Competing Interest statement on the submission form to the standard "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

Note: If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note that one of the reviews is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: uploaded as an attachment

Reviewer #2: In this study, the authors trained a group of rats in a visual temporal frequency classification task, in which visual stimuli were presented simultaneously with, but were task-irrelevant to, auditory stimuli. They developed a Bayesian ideal observer model, which captured the full spectrum of the rats’ perceptual choices. By integrating psychophysical experiments with computational modeling, the study identifies inhibition as a key mechanism underlying auditory–visual interactions.

Below are my comments:

(1) The authors employ a Bayesian ideal observer model, which is a commonly used approach. To improve clarity, it would be useful to specify whether any adaptations were made to the conventional model to suit the current experimental design.

(2) To validate the modeling approach, the authors should present goodness-of-fit measures that quantify the agreement between the model predictions and the observed behavioral data.

(3) The authors are encouraged to provide a clear summary of the critical model parameters, as this would significantly improve the transparency, reproducibility, and understanding of the modeling outcomes.

(4) The model's three underlying assumptions are outlined by the authors; however, further justification through citations from existing literature would enhance the theoretical foundation and clarify the rationale behind each assumption.

(5) In Figure 3, while rat 2 begins with a relatively high discrimination accuracy (~0.8), a noticeable decline occurs around training session 27, differing markedly from the trend observed in rat 1. The authors should provide a rationale for this discrepancy.

(6) The identification of inhibition as a key mediator of auditory–visual interactions represents a core conclusion of this study. To enhance conceptual clarity, the authors could consider providing a schematic diagram that illustrates the proposed inhibitory mechanism and its role in cross-modal processing.

Reviewer #3: It was a joy for me to read this excellent paper by Zanzi and Rinaldi et al. They report a carefully study on the effect of simultaneous task-irrelevant auditory stimulation on performance in a visual two-alternative forced choice discrimination task in rats. They find that auditory stimulation compresses the visual perceptual space in rats, and that increasing auditory intensity leads to increasing visual perceptual space compression. With impressive thoroughness, they construct a computational model that accounts for the observed data in a clear and straightforward manner. This study provides answers to several open questions about the nature of 'horizontal' (in terms of an inferential hierarchy) cortical connectivity between primary sensory cortical regions, and it clearly refutes some of the speculative explanations offered for observations from previous studies. In particular, Zanzi and Rinaldi et al. find that it is the total intensity of sensory stimulation prior to decision-making that determines the degree of compression of visual perceptual space, and more fundamentally that it is this compression which gives rise to the observed phenomena.

Since this study is extremely well-conceived and executed, and since the attendant modelling is entirely convincing, I believe it can be pubished more or less as submitted. Nonetheless, I have the following remarks:

- Looking at Figure 6B, wouldn't it have made sense to have a linear model (two parameters: intercept and slope) for the dependency of gamma on average sound pressure level instead of fitting a number of independent values for gamma and then embarking on a big model comparison exercise?

- While quantitative model comparisons of the kind reported can sometimes be helpful, it is generally more informative to choose a model on the basis of its performance in prior and posterior predictive simulations. It would therefore be interesting to see prior predictive simulations in addition the posterior ones in Figure 6A.

- Reinforcing the previous point, the priors of the chosen computational model should be justified by prior predictive simulation instead of an appeal to convention (line 857). Reference 54 (to which you appeal) would agree.

- Given the authors' impressive modelling capabilities, I was surprised to find some of the data analyzed by ANOVA, an unregularized out-of-the-box procedure.

**********

Have the authors made all data and (if applicable) computational code underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data and code underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data and code should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data or code —e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

Figure resubmission:

While revising your submission, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.

After uploading your figures to PLOS’s NAAS tool - https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis, NAAS will process the files provided and display the results in the "Uploaded Files" section of the page as the processing is complete. If the uploaded figures meet our requirements (or NAAS is able to fix the files to meet our requirements), the figure will be marked as "fixed" above. If NAAS is unable to fix the files, a red "failed" label will appear above. When NAAS has confirmed that the figure files meet our requirements, please download the file via the download option, and include these NAAS processed figure files when submitting your revised manuscript.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PCOMPBIOL-D-25-00990.docx

Dear Dr. Zoccolan,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Seeing what you hear: compression of rat visual perceptual space by task-irrelevant sounds' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Computational Biology.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Computational Biology. 

Best regards,

Stefano Panzeri

Academic Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Daniele Marinazzo

Section Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

***********************************************************