How long is long? Word length effects in reading correspond to minimal graphemic units: An MEG study in Bangla

Swarnendu Moitra; Dustin A. Chacón; Linnaea Stockall

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0292979

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 31, 2023
26 Dec 2023 Decision Letter - John Blake, Editor PONE-D-23-30063How long is long? Word length effects in reading correspond to minimal graphemic units: An MEG study in BanglaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Moitra, 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 agreed that your manuscript is worthy of publication once you have fully addressed the minor revisions. Each reviewer has provided some clear guidance on how to revise your submission. In particular, please fully address the reviewer concerns regarding the clarity of the method, and the inclusion of the additional analyses. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 09 2024 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, John Blake, PhD 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. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 3. 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. 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: Yes ******** 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: Yes 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: The authors present a study of the neural responses that correspond to word length in Bangla, an Indo-Aryan language which is a branch of the Indo-Iranian language family. Bangla is written in abugida script which is a semi-syllabic writing system where consonant letters generally represent an inherent phonetic vowel which may be suppressed in initial consonant clusters or in final consonants. I suggest that the authors incorporate the following information to provide more context for their research questions. The reading network in the left hemisphere includes the temporoparietal cortex, the occipital temporal cortex, and the inferior frontal cortex. The left ventral occipitotemporal cortex is a key region for orthographic processing because the "visual word form area" is located in this region. The left OT cortex begins to show specialization for orthographic processing, as reading acquisition increases. There are two important pathways that are engaged during reading. In the dorsal reading pathway is the left temporo-parietal area which is involved in phonological representation and phonological assembly. In the ventral reading pathway is the left inferior temporal gyrus which is involved in rapid orthographic recognition and sight word reading. There are three stages of reading development. During logographic reading, a reader memorizes the meaning of a word based on the shape of the letters and the word. During phonological reading, a reader applies grapheme-phoneme-correspondence to convert scripts to sounds and then accesses meaning. During orthographic reading, a reader recognizes sight words from memory without having to convert graphemes to phonemes. Reviewer #2: The study's use of magnetoencephalography (MEG) to investigate the impact of word length on brain activity in Bangla, a non-alphabetic script, is insightful. It demonstrates that brain activity in the anterior left fusiform gyrus correlates with word length measured by minimal graphemic units, challenging traditional metrics and theories on early-stage reading sensitivity to word frequency. However, the methodology requires additional clarity: - The study should specify if the regression analysis uses the contrast of word and non-word MEG responses or only words. This clarification would enhance methodological robustness. - If not done, the integration and comparative analysis of responses to both words and pseudowords (non-words) would deepen the understanding of language-specific processing. - The detailed task performance findings in the analysis are necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between behavioral responses and MEG data. Minor, - Please ensure consistency between the color bar and the localized sources. The colormap of the maps looks 'hot' but the colorbar is blue-white-red. These revisions would strengthen the study's contribution to cognitive processing research in non-alphabetic languages. I recommend this study for publication in Plos One with the aforementioned revisions. ****** 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: Kyle PerkinsI Reviewer #2: Yes: Vahab Youssof Zadeh ******** [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.0292979.r001
Revision 1
13 Feb 2024 Author Response Dear Managing Editor, Thank you for the consideration of our manuscript 'How long is long? Word length effects in reading correspond to minimal graphemic units: An MEG study in Bangla' for the journal PLoS One. We appreciate the feedback and advice that was provided to us by our reviewers. We've updated the manuscript, implementing most of the suggestions that were provided to us by the reviewers. We believe that this has resulted in a stronger and clearer paper that makes a better, direct contribution to the neuroscience of reading. We have also highlighted the changes, for better comparison with the original submission. Below, we've responded to each of the reviewers' comments, clarifying how we've implemented their suggestions to improve the paper. Our comments are provided in red. ––––––––––––––––– Reviewer 1 Reviewer #1: The authors present a study of the neural responses that correspond to word length in Bangla, an Indo-Aryan language which is a branch of the Indo-Iranian language family. Bangla is written in abugida script which is a semi-syllabic writing system where consonant letters generally represent an inherent phonetic vowel which may be suppressed in initial consonant clusters or in final consonants. I suggest that the authors incorporate the following information to provide more context for their research questions. The reading network in the left hemisphere includes the temporoparietal cortex, the occipital temporal cortex, and the inferior frontal cortex. The left ventral occipitotemporal cortex is a key region for orthographic processing because the "visual word form area" is located in this region. The left OT cortex begins to show specialization for orthographic processing, as reading acquisition increases. Response : “Thank you for this suggestion. We agree that acknowledging that our research focuses on one earlier component of the reading network is relevant for understanding the broader context of our results. We believe that our findings clarify the function of this brain region and its role in the initial stages of orthographic analysis. We've updated the manuscript with a subsection in the Discussion where we implement these suggestions.” There are two important pathways that are engaged during reading. In the dorsal reading pathway is the left temporo-parietal area which is involved in phonological representation and phonological assembly. In the ventral reading pathway is the left inferior temporal gyrus which is involved in rapid orthographic recognition and sight word reading. There are three stages of reading development. During logographic reading, a reader memorizes the meaning of a word based on the shape of the letters and the word. During phonological reading, a reader applies grapheme-phoneme-correspondence to convert scripts to sounds and then accesses meaning. During orthographic reading, a reader recognizes sight words from memory without having to convert graphemes to phonemes. Response: “Thank you for this suggestion. We've included a discussion of these matters in the same new subsection in the Discussion. We agree that our results may have some significance for better understanding how the brain implements different kinds of reading strategies, and how these reading strategies may differ between readers and writing systems. However, since we are focusing primarily on adult readers of Bangla, we did not focus substantially on the development of readers. We agree that acknowledging the neural substrates of different strategies is important. In our new section, we suggest that our results demonstrate that the first 'way-station' of orthographic processing is sensitive to smaller units that can roughly correspond to phonemes, which may be key to better theorising the reading strategies that readers of abugidas use and the function of fusiform gyri in the broader reading network.” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer #2: The study's use of magnetoencephalography (MEG) to investigate the impact of word length on brain activity in Bangla, a non-alphabetic script, is insightful. It demonstrates that brain activity in the anterior left fusiform gyrus correlates with word length measured by minimal graphemic units, challenging traditional metrics and theories on early-stage reading sensitivity to word frequency. Response: “Thank you, we hope our findings are relevant and contribute to our understanding of the fusiform gyrus and its function in the broader reading network.” However, the methodology requires additional clarity: - The study should specify if the regression analysis uses the contrast of word and non-word MEG responses or only words. This clarification would enhance methodological robustness. Response: “Thank you for this point. The original manuscript did not make this point clearly. We include both grammatical words and ungrammatical non-words since we are focusing on the processes relevant to the initial detection of word-forms, before lexical access or morphological analysis. It is important to note that our non-words are not unfamiliar stems (like 'dax') or implausible letter sequences (like 'xkq'), but rather morphologically ungrammatical words that are composed of familiar stems and affixes (like 'relaugh' or 'redog'). Thus, the identification of basic word form properties are not expected to be substantially different between our grammatical words and pseudowords.” - If not done, the integration and comparative analysis of responses to both words and pseudowords (non-words) would deepen the understanding of language-specific processing. - The detailed task performance findings in the analysis are necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between behavioral responses and MEG data. Response: “The original manuscript contained the response times to words and pseudowords in the lexical decision task. However, we've included a more detailed discussion of the results, including the acceptance rates of the words. As clarified in the new subsection in Results, reaction times were significantly longer for the pseudowords compared to the grammatical words, and the pseudowords were accepted substantially less often than the grammatical words, as expected. This has been included in the Results section. We also conducted an analysis to compare the MEG responses to Grammatical vs. Pseudowords in our search parameters. As expected, there were no significant clusters distinguishing between these stimulus types, since we are examining the brain responses before morphological or lexical analysis has occurred, in the occipito-temporal regions that are primarily implicated in mapping visual stimuli to linguistic representations, as opposed to processing those representations.” Minor, - Please ensure consistency between the color bar and the localized sources. The colormap of the maps looks 'hot' but the colorbar is blue-white-red. Response: “The original manuscript used the colorbar correctly; as we explained in the caption, the yellow marked the spatial extent of the colour, and the blue-white-red shading indicated the t-values of the cluster at the peak of the timecourse, red corresponding to positive t-values and blue corresponding to negative t-values. We did not average the t-values over time as is typical in plotting the spatial extent of clusters. However, to avoid this confusion, we've plotted t-values averaged over time, as is more common, and updated the figures accordingly. This has little effect on the basic shape of the clusters that we are plotting” These revisions would strengthen the study's contribution to cognitive processing research in non-alphabetic languages. I recommend this study for publication in Plos One with the aforementioned revisions. Response: “We thank the reviewer for the kind and helpful comments!” https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292979.r002
21 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - John Blake, Editor How long is long? Word length effects in reading correspond to minimal graphemic units: An MEG study in Bangla PONE-D-23-30063R1 Dear Dr. Moitra, 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, John Blake, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed 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: I think that the authors have addressed the reviewers' comments and suggestions. I think that the manuscript now meets all the PLOS ONE criteria for publication, and I look forward to seeing the manuscript in print. Reviewer #2: The authors have successfully addressed my comments and questions. Therefore, I recommend this work for publication. ****** 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: Kyle Perkins Reviewer #2: Yes: Vahab Youssofzadeh ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292979.r003
Formally Accepted
24 Mar 2024 Acceptance Letter - John Blake, Editor PONE-D-23-30063R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Moitra, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. John Blake Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292979.r004

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 .