PONE-D-21-31403A simple model considering spiking probability during extracellular axon stimulationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rattay,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 08 2022 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,

Jun Ma, Dr.

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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

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

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

“This work was supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), grant no. 29650.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that 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:

“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.

 Reviewer #1: A simple model considering spiking probability and noise was investigated in the present MS. Due to that too many information were not presented or the descriptions were too professional, I can not judge the importance of the present paper and how the results are acquired. For example, what’s the importance of the three points of the results, and how the results of tables or figures are acquired? And even no a whole model for the nerve fiber is provided. The nerve fiber consists of nodes of Ranvier and internodes were considered. What’s the model for nodes of Ranvier, what’s the model for internode, which were not stated clearly. In general, if the behavior of the nerve fiber is near the threshold, the noise will play important roles in modulating the generation of action potential. Both the membrane potential and noise type and intensity influence the generation of action potential. If the models of the nodes of Ranvier and internode are different, the results are complex due to different thresholds for the Ranvier and internode. In addition, the distance or number of Ranvier are also important. However, the results for the action potentials at nodes of Ranvier and internode, changes of action potential along with the distance, changes of the action potential with noise were not presented. Why the standard normal distribution? How the results of tables were acquired? Another sense for the present MS is too “specialized”, which is based on the results of some references. It is difficult to read for most of the readers, due to the contents and the expressions. In summary, the present paper maybe important, but which has not been presented in the abstract, introduction and results. If the MS can not be improved to a very large extent, I do not suggest the MS to be published.

Reviewer #2: The paper looks very raw, like a technical report. Though the underlying investigation is interesting. The main outcome of the paper is that the proposed model well matches the measurements if its parameters are fitted to the data. However, to understand this, the reader has to study the whole manuscript. It is clear that the paper should be reorganized. The main idea should be placed into the abstract and the introduction, the tables should be removed to supplementary and/or replaced by charts, the comparison of the proposed model and existing ones should be made explicitly. After a complete revision of the manuscript it should be studied more carefully for some minor issues.

Please, provide reproducibility of the results: all parameters should be put together. The methods and techniques for parameter fitting should be explicitly declared.

[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.

PONE-D-21-31403R1A simple model considering spiking probability during extracellular axon stimulationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rattay,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 17 2022 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,

Jun Ma, Dr.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewer #1: The revised MS has been improved to a large extent. I suggest the MS to be published after revisions.

(1) The author claim that they consider an important factor which is often ignore in other investigations. The results acquired with their model close match the experimental results. The author should present the shortage of the results acquired by other models and compare their results and other results. In addition, the significance or potential application of this model or method should be presented.

(2) The figures should be improved, for example, the first letter should be capitalized. There are many errors in the References. Some recent references may be needed.

Reviewer #2: The problem of the paper comes from its idea. The authors consider that

1) the neuronal signal is binary, but there are many papers that subthreshold activity plays a significant role, see https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-24-10727.1999 for example (rather old paper!);

2) the external input is considered to be Gaussian (the 1st reviewers also addressed this problem, but the authors could not answer properly), but there are papers considering that this is not the case, see https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.97.060302 as an example.

These two issues are significant because the whole paper is based on them. If authors cannot address these questions, the paper should be rejected.

[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.

A simple model considering spiking probability during extracellular axon stimulation

PONE-D-21-31403R2

Dear Dr. Rattay,

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,

Jun Ma, Dr.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewer #1: Considering that my commnets have been considered in the revised MS, I suggest the present to be published.

Reviewer #2: The paper is still too complex to read. However, since I read it three time, I can say now, that I mostly understand what is mentioned. I hope that other researchers will be more lucky and intelligent.