Modifying Deutsch’s scale illusion for application in music

Issei Ichimiya; Hiroko Ichimiya

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0280452

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 29, 2021
26 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Avanti Dey, Editor PONE-D-21-24563Modifying Deutsch's scale illusion for application in musicPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ichimiya, 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. The expert reviewer raises a number of concerns regarding the organization and reporting of the manuscript. In particular, they suggest significant improvements to be made to clarifications of the methodological details and justification of the rationale. Can you please address these concerns in your revision? Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 09 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, Avanti Dey, PhD Staff 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. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No ****** 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 ****** 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 ****** 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 primary challenge in reviewing this manuscript was a combination of missing information and lack of clarity. I will give overall comments as details are likely to change with any revision of the manuscript. From the start, I'm unsure what is meant by global pitch range, local pitch proximity and laterality. I can infer the last two, but these should be explicitly defined for the context of this experiment. The Deutsch scale illusion is described but no other literature on the concepts of global pitch range, local pitch proximity and laterality, how they operate perceptually and how they interact. It is also unclear why it necessary to imitate this illusion with "music". Throughout the manuscript, there is reference to "other notes" or "other tonal sequences". I could not determine exactly what the authors were referring to, and so it is difficult to evaluate the soundness of the reporting, or the conclusions that can be drawn. For example, the first sentence of most Results sections is meaningless without having defined the dependent variable and what the "other tonal sequences" are. The organization of the manuscript is confusing at first. Materials and Methods are presented as if for one experiment, but later on we find that there are four. I would suggest repeating the Materials and Methods sections, along with Results and Discussion for each experiment, where the materials section for Experiments 2-4 can describe how the materials here differ from Experiment 1. The statistical analysis section is missing a description of the dependent variable and how it was calculated. I can guess at what the "mean ratio" is in the Results and Discussion sections, but it should be spelled out clearly. There is mention in the Results sections of the left and right ears being switched but this is not mentioned anywhere in the description of the stimuli or tasks. I appreciate that the alpha was set in the Statistical Analyses section, this is important. However, when using frequentist statistics, this is the only alpha to be used, and Bonferroni correction is applied to it where relevant. This means that all p values reported should be alpha, or alpha divided by the number of tests. There is no difference in significance between .05 and .01, this is a common mistake in statistical analysis (see for example Dienes, Z. (2011) Bayesian Versus Orthodox Statistics: Which Side Are You On? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6(3)). The description of the tasks for Experiment 4 is especially confusing. I think I understand what was done, but the description can be improved significantly. The General Discussion is again missing any meaningful engagement with the auditory perception literature and it is still unclear why the Deutsch illusion with music is desirable or interesting. Furthermore, I would remove discussion of objective vs. subjective. First, objectivity is impossible, and the short sentence saying that subjective investigation is still meaningful comes across as being thrown in, and disingenuine. A discussion of differing frameworks and approaches however, could be interesting and meaningful here. Specifically for the figures, I would suggest using a colour palette that is colour blind friendly - red and green are especially difficult to tell apart. The green line is sometimes missing from the figure legend. ****** 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 [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280452.r001
Revision 1
26 May 2022 Author Response Response to Reviewer #1: We appreciate your valuable comments. We hope the revised version makes it clearer to understand. As added in the manuscript, "local pitch proximity" means "note-to-note pitch proximity," and "laterality" means "differences in ear of input." I have changed the term, "global pitch range" to "overall pitch range" because it is less confusing. To avoid confusion, I have also changed the expression, "other notes" to "other note patterns," and "tonal sequences" to "tone patterns." Following your advice, I have repeated the Materials and Methods sections along with Results and Discussion for each experiment. Detailed description was added in the Statistical analysis section. In the Materials and Methods section, it is described "The tone patterns that switched between the right and left ears were tested in the same way." In the statistical analyses, statistical significance was set at p < 0.05, and I have deleted the description of p < 0.01. In Experiment 3, McNemar's chi-squared test was applied. I have changed the description of the tasks for Experiment 4. In the General Discussion, I have removed the discussion about objective vs. subjective because it is less important. In the Introduction and the General Discussion, I have added the description of why the Deutsch illusion with music is desirable or interesting. I especially appreciate your comment concerning the color of the figures because honestly, I had never thought about figures that are friendly to the color blind. For more telling apart, I have changed the green solid line to a green dotted line. I have also changed the description in the figure legend, from "red line" to "red circles and solid line," and "blue line" to "blue Xs and dotted line." The missing figure legend about the green line was also added. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280452.r002
14 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Steve Zimmerman, Editor PONE-D-21-24563R1Modifying Deutsch's scale illusion for application in musicPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ichimiya, 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. Thank you for revising your manuscript in light of the comments made by original reviewer. We have now had your submission reviewed by a second reviewer, whose comments are below. There is still some confusion regarding p values and Bonferroni corrections. I agree with the reviewer that clear reporting of statistical tests and results in the results section would clarify matters. Could you please carefully revise the manuscript to address all comments raised? Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 29 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, Steve Zimmerman, PhD Associate Editor, PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. 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 #2: (No Response) ******** 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 #2: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #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 #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 #2: This is a very interesting study on the Deutsch's scale illusion. Specifically, the authors explored the condition that this illusion can be perceived effectively and they applied it in music (songs). Some of my suggestions for further improvement are as follow: -From reading the abstract and the introduction, I thought that there are 2 experiments only. It might be clearer to replace 'in the first half of the experiment' with experiment 1 and 2 and replace 'in the latter half of the study' with experiment 3 and 4. Also, I suggest providing a brief overview of the 4 experiments in introduction. -Line 163 and line 334-335: if p-value was set at 0.05, then the post hoc test did not use Bonferroni-corrected p value? -It would be great if test statistics and exact p-values for significant results are reported in results session. -Line 319-320: what is the time period between experiment 3 and 4? How soon did the participants from experiment 3 completed the next experiment? ****** 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 #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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280452.r003
Revision 2
25 Sep 2022 Author Response Response to Reviewer Comments: Thank you for your valuable comments. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on the manuscript. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided, and hope that the revised version is clearer to understand. 1. From reading the abstract and the introduction, I thought that there are 2 experiments only. It might be clearer to replace 'in the first half of the experiment' with experiment 1 and 2 and replace 'in the latter half of the study' with experiment 3 and 4. Also, I suggest providing a brief overview of the 4 experiments in introduction. Response: We replaced the terms “Experiment 1, 2, 3, and 4” with “Experiment 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b.” We have also used the expression "in the first half of the study" and "in the latter half of the study" in the revised manuscript. A brief overview of the 4 experiments was also provided in introduction. 2. Line 163 and line 334-335: if p-value was set at 0.05, then the post hoc test did not use Bonferroni-corrected p value? It would be great if test statistics and exact p-values for significant results are reported in results session. Response: Based on the reviewer’s comments, we realized that the description regarding p values and Bonferroni corrections may have been confusing. We have clarified that the post hoc test did use Bonferroni-corrected p values, and that p values < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. The exact p values for significant results have now been reported in the Results sections. 3. Line 319-320: what is the time period between experiment 3 and 4? How soon did the participants from experiment 3 completed the next experiment? Response: The time period between Experiment 2a (previously Experiment 3) and 2b (previously Experiment 4) has been specified. Experiment 2b was conducted at least one day after Experiment 2a. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280452.r004
12 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Nicola Megna, Editor PONE-D-21-24563R2Modifying Deutsch's scale illusion for application in musicPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ichimiya, 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 26 2023 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, Nicola Megna, M.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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 #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ******** 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 #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #2: The manuscript is better this time, just one minor comment on reporting p-values: please report 3 decimal places for the p-values (instead of 4 decimal places) (e.g., p = .023, not p = 0.0229). Also, p = 0.000 is not possible, it may actually be 0.0000000001 and as it is too small and too long, it won't be shown on the output. So, if p is smaller than .001, you can simply report p < .001. Reviewer #3: In my opinion, the article would benefit from a more orderly general discussion linked to the article's findings. Typically, a discussion is expected to re-read the literature in the light of the study findings, which need to be re-described highlighting their relevance. Subsequently, authors could describe how one could proceed in that area of study. In the discussion of this article, the authors start off confusedly with how they could improve their study (lines 386-397, for example), then list other illusions, and finally justify the choice to also use pieces of music. I suggest an orderly and logical rewrite of the general discussion. ****** 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 #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes: Nicola Megna ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280452.r005
Revision 3
20 Dec 2022 Author Response Response to Reviewer #1: We greatly appreciate your valuable comments. Following your advice, we have revised the p-values. Response to Reviewer #2: We greatly appreciate your valuable comments. We understand that the general discussion section was confusing. Following your advice, we have re-written the section. We hope that the revised version of the manuscript has properly addressed your concerns. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280452.r006
3 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Nicola Megna, Editor Modifying Deutsch's scale illusion for application in music PONE-D-21-24563R3 Dear Dr. Ichimiya, 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, Nicola Megna, M.D. 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 #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 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 #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes: Nicola Megna ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280452.r007
Formally Accepted
5 Jan 2023 Acceptance Letter - Nicola Megna, Editor PONE-D-21-24563R3 Modifying Deutsch’s scale illusion for application in music Dear Dr. Ichimiya: 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. Nicola Megna Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280452.r008

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 .