PONE-D-22-14768No evidence for a mixing benefit - A Registered Report of voluntary dialect switching.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kirk,

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.

Three external reviewers have now evaluated your submission. They have identified a number of concerns that need to be carefully addressed in a revision of the manuscript. Please respond to all the points they have raised, paying particular attention to their requests for conceptual and methodological clarifications and their suggestions for improving the contextualisation of the study.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 21 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,

Jamie Males

Editorial Office

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 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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript adhere to the experimental procedures and analyses described in the Registered Report Protocol?

If the manuscript reports any deviations from the planned experimental procedures and analyses, those must be reasonable and adequately justified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. If the manuscript reports exploratory analyses or experimental procedures not outlined in the original Registered Report Protocol, are these reasonable, justified and methodologically sound?

A Registered Report may include valid exploratory analyses not previously outlined in the Registered Report Protocol, as long as they are described as such.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Are the conclusions supported by the data and do they address the research question presented in the Registered Report Protocol?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the research question(s) outlined in the Registered Report Protocol and on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

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 #1: Yes

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. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript describes the results of a preregistered study examining the symmetry of switch costs and the presence of a mixing benefit (or cost) in bidialectical adults during voluntary language switching. The manuscript is well-written and the research described makes an important contribution to the field. I have only a few minor suggestions for revision.

1) Can the authors provide more detail about the Dundonian Switch Rate and English Switch Rate in Table 1? Do these names indicate switches into that dialect or from that dialect? Were the percentages calculated out of the total number of valid responses or total number of valid responses in that dialect?

2) Did the number of valid Dundonian responses during the voluntary language switching paradigm differ significantly from the number of valid English responses? Since participants report using Dundonian about 26% of the time, I would expect fewer responses in Dundonian during the task, but this could also be important to consider when drawing conclusions about the symmetry of the switch costs.

3) This section of the discussion (on page 20) is difficult to follow: “However, relying on voluntary language switching does change the typical mixing cost effect observed with involuntary language switching into a non-significant effect. So, it might be that the underlying mechanism that turns a mixing cost into a mixing benefit due to bilingual voluntary language switching could also reduce the mixing cost with bidialectals to the point that it is not significant anymore when relying on voluntary language switching.” Are the authors trying to highlight that although they did not see a mixing benefit, they also did not see a mixing cost? I think the authors should attempt to reword this section a bit for clarity.

4) On page 5, the authors write that “In the current study, we set out to investigate if this is also the case for bidialectals by letting bidialectals perform in a voluntary language switching paradigm.” Since this is a research study, it seems more appropriate to say that you asked them to perform a voluntary language switching paradigm than that you let them perform a voluntary language switching paradigm.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript reports a study examining voluntary switching and mixing effects in bidialectal speakers. Switching costs were found to be comparable for the two languages (symmetrical costs) and no mixing effects were observed. The findings are compared to effects typically observed with bilingual switchers.

I enjoyed reading the manuscript. It is clear and well written and it is always a pleasure to see more research on bidialectals. I didn't (as far as I recall) review the Stage 1 of this study. I have focused my review on the results & discussion but have two minor suggestions for clarification for the intro and methods. I am not sure if it's possible to implement them in a Stage II report, so I'll leave it up to the editor to advise on this.

Abstract (last sentences discussing results);

- The way the last part of the abstract is formulated ("no mixing benefit was observed") is entirely correct but did leave me with the impression that maybe a mixing cost was observed. The discussion very nicely discusses how no mixing effect still differs from cued tasks (which usually show mixing costs) and could suggest there is a qualitative rather than a quantitive difference here. The abstract does not fully capture this, so you might want to reword it to make it clear there was no mixing cost either (and to perhaps reflect on this further like done in the discussion).

Introduction:

- This point is now actually discussed in the discussion, but I was wondering about the way symmetrical switching costs are introduced in the introduction. The introduction presents a picture of switching costs being almost always symmetrical in voluntary switching studies. I don't think that presents a fully representative picture of the literature. This is partly because there are several voluntary switching studies that show an asymmetry (some are mentioned now in footnote 1 in the discussion). The other reason is that several of the studies (refs 8-14) mentioned in the introduction as support for symmetrical voluntary switching costs looked at more balanced bilinguals who might not always (and indeed in some studies do not) show asymmetrical cued switching costs either. Again, I am not sure if you can make minor edits for clarification to the introduction at this point, but if you can, I would suggest at least mentioning that asymmetrical voluntary costs have been observed in some studies.

Methods:

- This really is a point of clarification that would be great to see made. Page 11 describes the set-up of the single-language blocks. Based on this description "Participants

first saw one single language block, followed by the four voluntary language switching blocks,

and then again one single language block in the other language variety than the first single language

block.", am I right in thinking that participants completed each single language block in only one language? In other words, half of the participants did Language A - switching - Language B and the other half Language B - switching - Language A? This would be good to clarify - if my interpretation of this sentence is correct, it differs from the approach used in other studies, including the three studies from my group mentioned in the preceding sentence saying the study was modelled after. If my interpreting is incorrect, a clearer formulation would help to clarify both languages were presented before and after the switching task.

Discussion:

- page 19 (at the end) states that "the lack of such a mixing benefit with bidialectals could be

interpreted as there being no proactive language control, or at least no proactive control as

measured by the voluntary mixing benefit effect".

This suggests that a possible interpretation could be that they use no proactive control at all (as measured through this effect) but perhaps a simpler (and maybe more justifiable) interpretation could be that there is no proactive control difference between single- and dual-language contexts?

- The discussion presents a nice and careful discussion of why effects might have emerged in the way they did and how they can be influenced by various variables. I would suggest two other points of discussion here though. First of all, I think it might be wise to make the reader aware of the relatively limited number of studies that actually look at voluntary mixing effects. Especially compared to the cued switching literature, there are not that many voluntary switching studies, and quite a few of them look at switching costs only and not at mixing effects. A lot of this work has also been done with specific types of bilinguals and language pairs (e.g., Basque/Spanish, English/Spanish, Chinese/English). With this relatively low number of studies it can be difficult to say what the "normal" patterns are. In this light, you could argue that no mixing effect differs from mixing benefits observed in previous studies but you could also argue that it is in line with some studies finding this benefit in only one language and no effect (or even a cost) in the other. My second point to make is that in general it can be quite difficult to draw conclusions about how these bidialectals might differ from bilinguals, simply because language control might differ across different types of language users (including language pairs). This is discussed on page 20, finishing with "Similarly, the results of the current study could be interpreted as bidialectals and bilinguals not relying on exactly the same language control

processes." I would suggest to discuss that this could maybe also reflect differences between different types of language pairs and/or language users rather than a (seemingly categorical) difference between bidialectals and bilinguals as such.

Angela de Bruin

Reviewer #3: This is an interesting study of voluntary switching in bidialectal speakers. There is an emerging literature involving voluntary switching paradigms, and relatively little is known about voluntary switching in bidialectals as opposed to bilinguals. The study therefore has the potential to fill a gap in the research in the field. One of the key issues I have with this is the repetition of the target items over the different blocks (see below for details). In my view this is highly problematic and may well prevent this study from being publishable in its current form.

Literature review:

Pro-active language control: Reference to Braver (2012) – the key reference to pro-active/reactive control - is missing.

There is also an increasingly substantial literature on measuring similarity between languages, which is not referenced in this study. The issue of similarity is relevant for studies of bidialectals.

See eg. Schepens, J., Van Hout, R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2020). Big data suggest strong constraints of linguistic similarity on adult language learning. Cognition, 194, 104056.

4: “This should result in a more similar L1 and L2 activation level”. Change to: more similar L1 and L2 activation levels (plural)

p. 4 “easier words are produced in the L2”. It is not clear what easier words are. Are these words with higher frequency levels? It is likely that bilinguals use their two languages for different purposes (see Grosjean’s work) and therefore particular items may be better know in the L2 than the L1 (or vice versa). If some words are “easier” in the L2, it is likely an effect of topic or a frequency effect. In the discussion section, the issue of “easy items” is also taken up. Can the authors show which items were easier among their data set? Which ones were always mentioned faster?

p. 5: The term “involuntary” is confusing. Involuntary means “done without will or conscious control”. Switching does not happen irrespective of a participant’s intentions in these trials, as they actually try to use control mechanisms. There is a cue which tells participants in which language the trial should be produced. The term used in the literature is therefore “cued switching”. Please replace throughout the text.

p. 6., line 7 Control processes…… have (not has)

p. 6, line 8: even more damning … not academic language

p.6: “the extent to which bidialectals are similar to bilinguals is still unclear”. Change to: “it is still unclear to what extent….”

p. 6: “These studies provide evidence against the claim that language control is domain general [17, 24], as the control processes within a domain (i.e.,language processing) are sometimes even different.” I would be hesitant to dismiss the claim tat language control is domain general on the basis of the studies mentioned here. There could be many different reasons for the discrepancy in findings. These are likely due to differences in methods rather than fundamental differences in underlying processes. One of the key issues, in my view, is the locus of language control (see the work of Kroll, Bobb and Wodnieczka, 2006), which the authors do not mention at all. Do the authors really want to prove that language control processes are not domain general? Does the current study provide evidence for this? I don’t think so. The key issue in the current paper is whether is a difference between bidialectals and bilinguals. Better to concentrate on the evidence for / against this claim.

p.8: Why do the authors expect symmetrical switch costs with the bidialectals? I know they refer to Gollan and Fereira to support this claim, but they do not discuss the issue of language dominance, which is likely to affect the symmetry of switch costs. If the bidialectals are dominant in one of their two languages, there should be asymmetrical switch costs. The information provided in Table 10 shows that the bidialectals in the study use Dundonian only 26% of the time, and their self-ratings of it are also lower than their self-ratings of English. In Table 2 we also see that there were more errors in the Dundonian block. So it seems participants are clearly English-dominant. The issue of dominance will therefore need to be discussed. On p.21 the authors claim participants in the current study may be similar to highly proficient bilinguals. I am not sure what this claim is based on. The data from Table 10 does not seem to support this view.

The most problematic aspect of the methodology is that a small number of items was repeated so many times over the different blocks. There were twenty items that were presented twice in each block (6 blocks in total), so participants saw these items twelve times (apart from the familiarization phase, which meant another meeting with the items). The design is probably based on De Bruin, Samuel and Dunabeita (2020), where the same number of repetitions of items is found across blocks, but there is no discussion of the effect of repetition in that publication either. Can we still claim that retrieval processes needed for items that are repeated so often represent the processes used in situations with less repetition? I am not sure… Could distractors not have been included among the trials? These would have attenuated the effect of repetition and distracted from the target items, as is common in experimental designs. The absence of asymmetrical switch costs may well be an artefact of the large number of repetitions. Participants know that the same items are going to come back and they keep both in short term memory. The absence of interactions between type and variety (for switching and mixing analyses) may also be due to the repetition of the trials. Finally,there must be some learning effects or fatigue effects of the repetition across the blocks, but these are not discussed.

Mixing analysis: if items in English are names more slowly than in Dundee Scots, could this be the result of overcoming of inhibition of the more dominant language (which is more costly than overcoming inhibition of the less dominant language)?

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Angela de Bruin

Reviewer #3: Yes: Jeanine Treffers-Daller

**********

[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-22-14768R1No evidence for a mixing benefit - A Registered Report of voluntary dialect switching.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kirk,

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 manuscript has been re-evaluated by two reviewers, and their comments are available below. The reviewers have raised a number of minor concerns that need attention. Could you please revise the manuscript to carefully address the concerns raised? 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,

Katrien Janin

Staff 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. Does the manuscript adhere to the experimental procedures and analyses described in the Registered Report Protocol?

If the manuscript reports any deviations from the planned experimental procedures and analyses, those must be reasonable and adequately justified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. If the manuscript reports exploratory analyses or experimental procedures not outlined in the original Registered Report Protocol, are these reasonable, justified and methodologically sound?

A Registered Report may include valid exploratory analyses not previously outlined in the Registered Report Protocol, as long as they are described as such.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Are the conclusions supported by the data and do they address the research question presented in the Registered Report Protocol?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the research question(s) outlined in the Registered Report Protocol and on the data presented.

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. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript describes a study that examines bidialectal voluntary language (i.e., dialect) switching during a picture-naming task. I still believe that this manuscript makes an important contribution to the field, but there are some remaining (minor) concerns that I think the authors could better address in another revision.

P6: revised “have shown” should be “have been shown”

P11: After reading reviewer 2’s comment and then looking at the revision, I am still confused about the single language blocks. From reviewer 2’s comment, it sounds like the standard design is 2 single language blocks (one in each language), followed by the switching blocks, followed by 2 single language blocks again (one in each language). If that is the standard design in previous research, the authors should clarify why they chose to present only one language block before and only one language block after the switching.

P21: My initial comment about this sentence was that it was difficult to understand, and I don’t think that the revision made it easier to understand. I would advise breaking the ideas up into smaller sentences. It may also be helpful to specifically name the “underlying mechanism that turns a mixing cost into a mixing benefit.” I think you might mean a reduction in proactive control. If so, I would advise something like this: “Some researchers have proposed that the underlying mechanism that explains the difference between mixing costs during cued bilingual language switching and mixing benefits during voluntary bilingual language switching is a difference in proactive control. In other words, cued bilingual language switching results in mixing costs because it requires more proactive control (relative to single-language use), but voluntary bilingual language switching results in mixing benefits because it requires less proactive control (relative to single-language use). For bidialectals, the amount of proactive control needed to switch languages, relative to using a single language, may be different than for bilinguals, leading to a reduction in both mixing costs and mixing benefits.”

Reviewer #2: Thank you for making these revisions and for addressing my previous comments! I'm happy for this manuscript to be accepted in its current form.

**********

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: No

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.

No evidence for a mixing benefit - A Registered Report of voluntary dialect switching.

PONE-D-22-14768R2

Dear Dr. Kirk,

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,

Jie Wang, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Both reviewers are satisfied with the revisions. Reviewer 2 pointed out a missing space on P21.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript adhere to the experimental procedures and analyses described in the Registered Report Protocol?

If the manuscript reports any deviations from the planned experimental procedures and analyses, those must be reasonable and adequately justified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. If the manuscript reports exploratory analyses or experimental procedures not outlined in the original Registered Report Protocol, are these reasonable, justified and methodologically sound?

A Registered Report may include valid exploratory analyses not previously outlined in the Registered Report Protocol, as long as they are described as such.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Are the conclusions supported by the data and do they address the research question presented in the Registered Report Protocol?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the research question(s) outlined in the Registered Report Protocol and on the data presented.

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. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I am satisfied with the revisions and responses to my previous comments that the authors have provided. I believe this manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

Reviewer #2: I did not raise any concerns in my previous review and am happy with the responses to the other reviewer's feedback.

I just noticed that on page 21 a space seems to be missing between "switchingimpact".

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********