Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

PONE-D-21-33402Neural response to Sad Autobiographical recall and Sad Music listening post recall reveals distinct brain activation in alpha and gamma bands.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Behera,

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.

Both Reviewers' comments converge on a significant revision, including methodological issues that the authors must address. I fully agree with their decisions. I invite the authors to revise their manuscript and resubmit it for further consideration.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 30 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,

Vilfredo De Pascalis

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. PLOS ONE does not copy edit accepted manuscripts (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication#loc-5). To that effect, please ensure that your submission is free of typos and grammatical errors.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Both Reviewers' comments converge on a significant revision, including methodological issues that the authors must address. I fully agree with their decisions. I invite the authors to revise their manuscript and resubmit it for further consideration.

[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: No

**********

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: No

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: Review for PONE_21-33402

Title: Neural response to Sad Autobiographical recall and Sad Music listening post recall

reveals distinct brain activation in alpha and gamma bands.

General Overview:

Summarise main findings:

Overall, this is an innovative study, which was conceptualised, designed, and will certainly add to the literature. The study explored the EEG source strength, connectivity and changes associated with sad autobiographical recall and listening to sad music. In particular, alpha band lag phase-synchronization during sad music listening, especially within and between the Posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) and (PHC) when compared to sad autobiographical recall. The main feature found was that there may be two distinct for sad music listening and sad recall. The effects were found in alpha and gamma band.

Limitations and Strengths:

Overall, this is an innovative study, and well conceived. However there may be a few minor issues requiring clarification and restructuring of the narrative. For example:

• Why not other EEG frequencies, like theta? Beta? They are discussed I the introduction in the context of emotional memory. The authors need to explain why significance was not seen for these bands.

• Laterality could be associated with positive and negative emotion (Ahern et al 1985). Some disorders like PTSD may have triggers associated with sad music; perhaps the authors may need to highlight this early.

• The research may be culturally sensitive and will need further research in other cultures.

• Perhaps suggest reorganising format so Methods appears before results. There are some explanations in Methods which assist with the interpretation of the Results.

• Why not also have an additional 20 female participants?

The study is unique and will certainly add to the literature and be hypothesis generating especially for other clinical and cultural scenarios.

Abstract

• A good summary of the conceptual framework, methodologies, results, and outcomes. Could be more concise and clear.

Introduction

• Concepts are generally well introduced. Good rationale presented early in the narrative.

• However, the first three paragraphs could be more concise, seems like the same concepts are being covered again. Need to make it clear from a behavioral, social and biological point of view.

• The research may be culturally sensitive and will need further research in other cultures. Is it relevant to other cultures?

• Should also address emotional regulation in the context of the salience network as well.

• The final paragraph clarifies the rationale and outcomes , however the term ”probing tool” may not be an accurate description for the methodologies used. Reference to beta but no data presented in Figures later.

• May require some restructuring to improve flow of the narrative and rationale.

• Overall well referenced and conceptual design supported.

Results

• Well-constructed overall

• Some of the methodology described in Results, should be covered in Methods, for example, little mention of functional coherence analysis in Methods.

• Line 152-153 for the first time indicates that only the 3 bands reported significance across conditions. It may be advisable to indicate this in Methods as well.

• Need to refer to Tables in narrative eg (See Table 1).

Discussion

• A well-constructed narrative, however some proof reading and restructure necessary to improve flow of the narrative would be useful.

• Avoid the use of the term “probing tool”, investigative tool may be more appropriate.

• Some large paragraphs may require some rewriting to improve flow of the narrative. Starting line 283

• Some repetition

• Line 398 “In summary..”, should be a short paragraph and not followed by new and additional narrative. “In summary..”, again at line 459

• A limitations narrative is very brief and could have been expanded.

Methods

• This section is well constructed overall; however subheadings may have been useful in clarifying the protocols etc

• An appropriate methodology for functional connectivity was selected and applied. However more information about why, is required.

• Why do authors cite eLORETA paper ? Did they use this technique? Or was it sLORETA alone? This needs to be clarified. eLORETA is not the same as sLORETA and there may be some confusion in interpretation of data.

• Eye, blink and muscle movement may have contributed to EEG changes during SAR. How was this controlled for and was the minimize movement enough? Could this be achieved post analysis, not just visual inspection? Should reference the algorithms used in EEGLAB toolbox.

• What was the final number of participants tested once some were removed for previous exposure to music, artifact and after the KPD scale?

• Brand of amplifier/supplier ref?

• Why was an earlobe reference used? What about linked earlobes? This would contribute to laterality shifts.

• Was the baseline resting state eyes open or closed?

• Do the authors find any relationships with other bands, seeing that had these data.

• More details about how the sLORETA data was calculated and statistically analysed.

• A power analysis may have been useful in highlighting the statistical strength of effects and sLORETA data. Is n <20 sufficient for significance?

• Some of the methodology described in Results, should be covered in Methods, for example, little mention of functional coherence analysis in Methods.

• What platform was used to calculate the statistics? SPSS, Toolbox?

• Why was phase coherence selected as a tool?

References:

• Excellent review of the field with most primary references used.

Figure Legends:

• Most images are well constructed and easy to follow.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript ID: PONE-D-21-33402

Title: Neural response to sad autobiographical recall and sad music listening post recall reveals distinct brain activation in alpha and gamma bands.

Authors: Ashish Gupta, Braj Bhushan and Laxmidhar Behera

In this research, Gupta and colleagues compared EEG rhythms collected at rest (baseline) with those induced by sad autobiographical recall (SAR) and upon exposure to sad music. Results focused in particular on sad music listening condition, and revealed a significant involvement of Alpha and Gamma EEG bands in specific region of interest (ROIs) including CC, ACC, PCC and PHC. Authors concludes that the SAR condition induced enhanced gamma-band activity, suggesting increased content binding capacity, whereas the sad music listening was associated with an enhanced alpha band activity, suggesting increased content-specific information processing.

The paper addresses an important topic. However, there are important issues in the methods and data discussion that significantly affect the quality of the manuscript.

First of all, I’m puzzled about the authors’ choice over the frequency range used to define the delta EEG rhythm (i.e., 1.5-6 Hz): usually, delta waves range between 0/0.5/1 Hz to 4 Hz, whereas 4-6 Hz represent the lower frequencies of theta rhythm (full range = 4-8 Hz). I recommend to revise the analyses on delta and theta bands adjusting the frequency ranges, in line with most of qEEG literature.

The second, critical issue regards results discussion and interpretation. All the discussion focused on the increased phase synchronization/connectivity in the Alpha (1 and 2) band during sad music listening vs. SAR condition, and authors interpreted these findings as “an overall enhancement in the brain’s processing in areas related to memory and spatial/action information region specifically, in addition to emotion”. I’m not convinced this is the correct interpretation, as alpha rhythm is physiologically associated with cortical inhibition (see, for example, Klimesch, W. (2012). Alpha-band oscillations, attention, and controlled access to stored information. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16, 606-617). In this perspective, increased alpha connectivity should be interpreted as increased inhibition of these regions in the brain during sad music listening, or, from the other perspective, a decreased inhibition of the memory/spatial-action information/emotion circuit during SAR condition. This interpretation is further supported by the lack of “any significant difference between the functional connectivity between sad music listening condition and baseline resting-state for alpha band”.

Whether sad music listening induces “an overall enhancement in the brain’s processing in areas related to memory and spatial/action information region specifically, in addition to emotion”, this may be found also with respect to resting state (baseline) condition.

In addition, the decreased connectivity in alpha band (suggesting decreased inhibition within the brain network) found in SAR vs. sad music listening condition matches the result found in gamma EEG band, as “[…] Detailed brain activity analysis in the gamma band shows significantly enhanced activity during SAR state compared to sad music listening AND BASELINE RESTING STATE […] Gamma activity is a robust signature of episodic memory.”

I therefore recommend that the authors reconsider their interpretations of alpha rhythm in a more coherent discussion, in line with the suggested evidence.

Minor: was the participants’ subjective assessment of mood - across the three conditions - significantly correlated with EEG alpha and gamma connectivity patterns?

**********

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: Joseph Ciorciari

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.

Neural response to Sad Autobiographical recall and Sad Music listening post recall reveals distinct brain activation in alpha and gamma bands.

PONE-D-21-33402R1

Dear Dr. Behera,

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,

Vilfredo De Pascalis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I see that the manuscript has been revised in line with both Reviewers' comments. I thank the authors for addressing all comments made during the review.

The quality of the manuscript is now significantly improved. The study is now ready for publication.

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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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: We thank the authors for commenting and addressing all comments made during the first review. The revised manuscript is well written and complete.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript has been revised according to my previous review comments, and I think it is now significantly improved and suitable for publication on PLoS ONE.

**********

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: Associate Professor Joseph Ciorciari

Reviewer #2: No

**********