PONE-D-23-26472An auditory brain-computer interface based on selective attention to multiple tone streamsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kojima,

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 Dec 27 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,

Anwar P.P. Abdul Majeed

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 note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

   "This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP23K11811"

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

   "Initials: S. Kanoh

Grant number : JP23K11811

Funder: JSPS KAKENHI

URL: https://www.jsps.go.jp/

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. 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.

5. 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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 proposed a three-class BCI using three auditory tones, and tested on a small number of healthy subjects. The manuscript is well written and technical sound. However, there are still a few concerns:

1. the number of subjects is small and without any testing on patients. It is therefore strongly recommended to recruit some more subject, if not patients, given the relatively simple paradigm.

2. The authors mentioned auditory BCIs for ALS, but missed some key publications in this field, such as 10.3389/fnins.2017.00251, and 10.1007/978-981-16-5540-1_34 .

3. did any of the subjects have experience with auditory BCI? and if there was a testing session where the subjects can learn the paradigm?

4. the image quality needs to be improved, as they look blurred in the pdf

5. it is recommended to report the accuracy from each stream, so as to show if there is any imbalance among streams.

Reviewer #2: Overall, the contents of the manuscript just fair or average. Author needs to consider the following comments in order to enhance the quality of the manuscript.

Abstract section:

i) Author needs to mention the selected EEG features to achieve the classification accuracy > 80% for 3 subjects and > 75% for 4 subjects. Author needs to explain why the accuracy drop to 75% for 4 subjects.

Introduction section:

i) Author had mentioned in this section , "The largest amplitude is observed on the vertex" (page 2/9). Author needs to explain this statement. What is the value of the amplitude?

ii) The literature review on the Auditory BCI is good. However, there is only 10 citations from the references in this section which is not enough for the standard of the journal. It is suggested to author to cite more latest references such as in year 2020 till 2023.

Materials and Method section:

i) It is suggested to author to start this section with the process flowchart of the study.

ii) Author needs to create and implement the confusion matrix for the classification process.

iii) Author needs to explain how the selection of the EEG features are done.

iv) It is much preferable if the author can provide the sketch of the EEG montage to show the location of the EEG measurement.

v) It is good that author had provided the evidence of the work ethic approval.

vi) The procedure of the statistical analysis is not clearly described.

vii) Author needs to share the example of the xDAWN filter and explain the procedure of using this filter.

viii) It is only 2 equations are provided which is for calculating Sample Covariance Matrix (SCM). Author needs to provide formula equation for other processes such as 10-fold cross validation and t-test, and EEG signals features ERP, SSNR, Riemannian geometry and MCC.

ix) Author needs to verify this statement, "Recorded signals were bandpass filtered at 1 Hz to 40 Hz (FIR filter) at page 4/9. It is contradicted with the previous paragraph where author have mentioned that "Recorded signals were bandpass filtered at 1 Hz to 40 Hz (2nd Butterworth filter). It is because Butterworth filter IS NOT FIR filter.

x) Author needs to defined MCC and share formula of MCC.

Results and Discussion section:

i) The results are presented in term of the response to target stimuli as shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 and also

classification results in Table 2. The explanation of the figures and table are good. How about statistical results? How about the 10-fold cross validation results? How about the statistical analysis results, t-test?

ii) What is the results of the confusion matrix for the classification process?

iii) It is suggested to author to represent the results in term of graph for better view and understanding.

iv) Author needs to explain the results of the >80% and >75% classification accuracy.

Acknowledgement section:

Good.

References section:

i) 18 references are not good enough since the manuscript will be sent to Journal. It is suggested to author to cite more than 30 papers including the latest paper, such as published in year 2020 till 2023.

ii) There are very old references which are reference # 2 (published in year 1988), reference # 9 (published in year 1990).

**********

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

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.

PONE-D-23-26472R1An auditory brain-computer interface based on selective attention to multiple tone streamsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kojima,

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 Mar 21 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,

Anwar P.P. Abdul Majeed

Academic 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 #1: All comments have been addressed

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 #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: The authors address my comments properly, and to my point of view, the manuscript is ready for publishing.

Reviewer #2: Overall content of the revised manuscript looks much better than before. Author had just addressed some of the comments from the first review of the manuscript.

Abstract section:

i)The number of subject is increased to 11. Why only 1 female participant in the study?

ii) Author had explained the difference in the classification accuracy for 5 subjects and 9 subjects which it is acceptable.

Introduction section:

i)The content of this section in the revised manuscript look much better than before. However, it seems that this section is quite short. It is suggested to author to describe more on ERP by citing more references related to ERP.

ii) The literature reviews on Auditory BCIs are good which citation comes from recent publication.

Materials and Method section:

i) Author just add time chart of the experimental work which just describe the duration of each task. It is not enough. Thus, it is highly recommended to author to include flowchart of the study as well.

ii)The confusion matrices are still not provided in the manuscript.

iii) The process of generating feature are clearly explained.

iv) The diagram of EEG montage is provided as shown in Fig 2.

v) Author had changed the filter type from FIR filter to 2nd order Butterworth filter and filter range from 0.1 Hz to 40 Hz. However, author needs to explain why the 2nd order Butterworth is employed to filter the EEG and EOG data.

vi) The use of statistical analysis (t-test) is described in this section.

vii) The detail description of the xDAWN filter is provided in this section.

viii) The explanation on Reimannian classifier, 10-fold cross validation, MCC and t-test are provided. However, author still need to explain the variables in the formula such as TP, TN, FP & FN.

Results and Discussions section:

i) The statistical results of ERP (t-test) are provided in this section.

ii) Table 2 show the classification accuracy and MCC NOT the 10-fold cross validation results.

iii) The results of confusion matrix is provided in S1 Fig.

iv) The classification results for each subject and stream are provided.

v) The accuracy drop for some subjects are also explained.

Acknowledgement section:

Good

References section:

i) The number of references are good (32 references which include the recent publication).

ii) The explanation for selecting old references are acceptable.

********** 

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: Ren Xu

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.

PONE-D-23-26472R2An auditory brain-computer interface based on selective attention to multiple tone streamsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kojima,

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 May 11 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,

Anwar P.P. Abdul Majeed

Academic 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

I have reviewed the correspondance between Reviewer 2 and the authors, and the following is my advise to wrap this up:

1. Perhaps it is best that you could cite other works that has uneven number of gender distribution from the participants or perhaps omit the female participant from the study and in the discussion/conclusion/future works section, suggest that future studies would be look into the influence of gender difference towards the results.

2. For figure 5, you may retain it as is (don't need to change to a process flow-chart)

3. Find a reference or references to support the use of the second order filter

4. I am happy with the 10-fold cross validation results that have been presented (but you may need to change it if you were to use 10 participants).

[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: Yes

**********

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: Overall contents of the manuscript looks much better compared to the previous version of the manuscript. However, some of comments still not addressed properly by the authors as stated below;

Abstract section:

I am not agree with your statement that gender is not the main factor in your study in acoustic scene perception and experimental results. I suggest you to provide variation in your experimental works by including more female subjects. You also cannot said that the participation of the female subject is by "chance".

Introduction section:

It is good that you have addressed my comments by describing more on P300 ERP and add citations for ERP.

Materials and Method section:

1.Authors have not addressed my comments properly.

Fig. 1 can be considered as block diagram of the study which is good. However, Fig. 5 also looks like block diagram as well. I am much prefer if you can provide the process flowchart of the study (top-down process) which shows the detail processes and parameters that are involved in the study.

2. The operations of the confusion matrices are not well explained in the manuscript as stated in line 212-214.

3. You need to write, "... (2nd order Butterworth IIR filter)" in line 154 of the manuscript. However, authors still die not explain the selection of 2nd order Butterworth IIR filter. Why 2nd order? Author needs to provide more precise statement in choosing 2nd order filter.

4. It is good that the descriptions of TP, TN, FP and FN are provided at line 210-211.

Results and Discussion section:

Authors have still not addressed the comments of this section precisely. Authors have written that "The classification performance was evaluated by 10-fold cross validation." How author implement the 10-fold cross validation, there is no formula provided to perform this technique.

For my knowledge, classification accuracy and 10-fold cross validation are different thing. Classification accuracy is obtained by applying several classifiers such as SVM, kNN, ANN and others. However, in your study, you have applied Riemannian geometry as shown in Table 2. However, the 10-fold cross validation is one technique to validate the accuracy obtained using Riemannian geometry classifier.

**********

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.

An auditory brain-computer interface based on selective attention to multiple tone streams

PONE-D-23-26472R3

Dear Dr. Kojima,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Anwar P.P. Abdul Majeed

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE