Peer Review History
Original SubmissionSeptember 10, 2021 |
---|
PONE-D-21-29227Directionality of the injected current targeting the P20/N20 source determines the efficacy of 140 Hz transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS)-induced aftereffects in the somatosensory cortexPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mohd Zulkifly, 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 02 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:
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, Peter Schwenkreis 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 [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: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ********** 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: No 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: No ********** 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: The manuscript by Zulkifly describes a study on targeted transcranial electric stimulation (tES) in the sensory-motor system. In particular the authors discover that the angular match of the electric field in relation to sensory evoked activity predicts modulations of evoked activity. This is an important work that will help improving tES efficacy in my view. I quite enjoed reading this and I have only a few medium/minor comments to improve the manuscript. comments: 1. Abstract: 'We found a decrease in the power of oscillatory mu-rhythms during and immediately after tactile discrimination tasks, indicating an engagement of the somatosensory system during stimulus encoding. On a group level the oscillatory power was neither modulated by tACS after tactile finger stimulation and nor by tACS after median nerve stimulation as shown by the lack of differences in the P20/N20 and N30/P20 amplitude compared to sham stimulation.' These two sentences don't really bring the findings accross in my opinion. In fact when reading this I got the impression that P20/N20 are cortical oscillations. Some will probably agree that ERPs and oscillations are tightly related but given that the authors analyzed oscillations separately from ERPs this seemed odd, please rephrase. 2. Methods/Participants: is the history of medication, alcohol and caffeine use available and predictive of anything? Were smokers recruited? 3. Methods: When the frequency discrimination task is described only the difference frequency is mentioned in the text, the frequencies F1/2 are only mentioned in the figure. I recommend adding this info into the text as well. 4. Methods/Main experiment: Are the digitimer stimulation intensities available somewhere? were these very different across sessions in the same subjects? 5. Methods/tACS section: Initial impedance levels are quite high with 100kOhm is this right? Is the GTEN system capable of delivering 100V (needed for 100kOhm at 1mA)? How where the impedances during the actual stimulation? Related: why is this so drastically different to the 1kOhm for the EEG channels (which use the same net)? 6. Methods/EEG: why were the data band-pass filtered in two steps and not immediately with the narrower filter? 7. Methods/analysis: for the main experiment it is stated that fieldtrip was used for analysis, though it seems it is a mix of eeglab and fieldtrip. Please correct. 8. for the spectral analysis it should be made clear that data pre-processing starts with the raw data again, otherwise one might get the impression the ERP data are further processed. 9. results/oscillatory effects: were the differences (pre vs post) statistically contrasted for sham vs tACS conditions? This might be necessary to conclude that there were no effects of the modulation. 10. Were the angular match of stimulation and ERP source correlated to behavioral modulation via tACS? It would be very interesting to know if the match of the field is predictive of a behavioral effect. 11. Figure 1: a/b are used twice in the figure. Maybe use different labelling here. Reviewer #2: Major issue: 1. The title of this MS is not consistent with result. The efficacy of 140 tACS aftereffects were not influenced or determined by directionality. 2. The introduction is not well organized too, especially for the first two paragraph. The second paragraph of introduction is meaningless. It does not relate to the background of this research but a general point. It will be better to example why 140 Hz tACS were applied and why the discrimination tasks were used and what it the relationship between P20/N20 with such behavior performance. 3. Since the source of the P20/N20 was related to angular difference. It is interesting to re-analyze the hehavior performance data besed on the angular difference. 4. More Discussion is needed about reasons that why there is the negative correlation between source of the P20/N20 and angular difference. Minor issue: There are many language errors throughout the MS. It needs highly improvement. For example in the asbstract, and the sentence “They were right-handed as assessed by the Edinburgh handedness inventory [41], had no history of neurological and psychiatric illnesses and no contraindication to brain stimulation and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)” ********** 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: Yes: Philipp Ruhnau Reviewer #2: 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.] 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. |
Revision 1 |
Directionality of the injected current targeting the P20/N20 source determines the efficacy of 140 Hz transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS)-induced aftereffects in the somatosensory cortex PONE-D-21-29227R1 Dear Dr. Mohd Zulkifly, 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, Peter Schwenkreis Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. 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: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 4. 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: No ********** 5. 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 ********** 6. 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: I would like to thank the authors for this very thorough revision and for the detailed answers to my questions. I appreciate this. ********** 7. 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: Yes: Philipp Ruhnau |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-21-29227R1 Directionality of the injected current targeting the P20/N20 source determines the efficacy of 140 Hz transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS)-induced aftereffects in the somatosensory cortex Dear Dr. Mohd Zulkifly: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Peter Schwenkreis Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
Open letter on the publication of peer review reports
PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.
We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.
Learn more at ASAPbio .