PONE-D-21-23404Task Dynamics Define the Contextual Emergence of Human Corralling BehaviorsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nalepka,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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.

Specifically, the reviewers find value in the work, but one reviewer questions the connection between the experiment and simulations.  A revision of the manuscript may be able to address this issue.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 28 2021 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 plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• 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, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bryan C Daniels

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"Dr. Nalepka was supported by the Macquarie University Research Fellowship. Prof. Chemero was supported by the Charles Phelps Taft Research Center at the University of Cincinnati. Prof. Richardson was supported by the Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT180100447). A/Prof. Kallen, Prof. Saltzman and Prof. Richardson were supported by the National Institutes of Health (R01GM105045). We thank Dr. Maurice Lamb for assisting in equipment management and setup"

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"PN was supported by the Macquarie University Research Fellowship. AC was supported by the Charles Phelps Taft Research Center at the University of Cincinnati. MJR was supported by the Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (https://www.arc.gov.au/) (FT180100447). RWK, ES and MJR were supported by the National Institutes of Health (https://www.nih.gov/) (R01GM105045). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript"

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data 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 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—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. The paper is well written and attempts to make a connection between human behavior in encirclement experiments in humans and a mathematical model that is supposed to explain this behavior. However, this connection is presented in Fig.6 and it is unclear:

- As explained in the text and Fig. 5 there are two qualitatively different behaviors that appear in the simulations: circling movements (overdamped) and oscillatory behavior (underdamped). If the gray areas in Fig. 6 represent the experiments, it seems that most of the cases are in the overdamped region, so where is the experimental justification for the existence of both behaviors?

- The results of the simulations and experiments are mapped using HA mean speed, HA cumulative 2Pi roations or Mean Travel? According to the caption of the figure only HA mean speed is considered (?). All the three could be used and it will be important to check if the experimental data fall in the same region of the Damping-Stiffness coordinates. Otherwise the connection between this model and the experimental data is not convincing enough and it is supposed to be one of the main pillars of this study.

2. If only Eqs. 1,2 and 11 are relevant to the model, they should appear together. Eqs 3–4 which are not part of the model should appear only in the discussion (where they are relevant).

3. Is there a dependence of the results (experiments and simulations) on the number of TAs? As I understand that only 7 TAs were considered.

Reviewer #2: Although I find myself outside of the particular scientific discipline explored in this paper, with my insufficient grasp of long equations, I believe I understood the major conceptual advance and still hope the editor finds my review useful.

Altogether, the paper reads as an excellent contribution to the literature. With highly impressive methods, and important conclusions. Specifically, the authors placed naive human dyads in a three dimensional virtual world using VR headsets, and asked them to corral a group of seven agents (I like to think of them as "prey"). They found that humans performed circling behaviours around the prey while keeping their partner as close to the opposite side of the circle as possible. The really critical component is that the authors were able to replicate some (although not all) aspects of this behaviour using similar task dynamic equations to their original set of papers. This suggests human minds may be running calculations similar to those suggested here. Does this suggest that early hunter gatherers were circling their prey? Or do we just have enough flexibility in our cognition to solve this task cognitively? The authors are, in my opinion, welcome to explore these questions or just ignore them.

I think a summary paragraph would benefit this paper (again at authors discretion). Further than that, I have no major or minor comments and believe the paper is ready for publication in its present form. It read like a published work, and I must commend the authors on their clarity.

Daniel W. E. Sankey

(I sign all my reviews)

**********

6. 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: Yes: Daniel W. E. Sankey

[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.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Task dynamics define the contextual emergence of human corralling behaviors

PONE-D-21-23404R1

Dear Dr. Nalepka,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Bryan C Daniels

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: