PONE-D-24-06303An open-source perceptual crossing device for investigating brain dynamics during human interactionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Estelle,

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.

 One expert reviewer provides below helpful comments toward improving the submitted work. These mainly relate to sharpening the clarity of the manuscript with respect to its intented audience, for instance by considering theoretical implications and mitigations of technical complications.  In addition to the comments of this reviewer, I would like to raise two additional remarks myself:- In the motivation of the study, it is reported that previous devices were limited at the location and area of vibrostimulation (lines 53-55). I recommend making clearer the reasons as to why this can be considered a limitation. - Line 230, there is a reference to a 'marker', but it is unclear what marker is being referred to. 

​

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 25 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,

Dimitris Voudouris

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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: 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: OVERALL

The authors present designs and validation for a perceptual crossing device that support investigations of real-time human social interaction. I see this version of the Perceptual Crossing Device as an excellent example of engineering innovation applied to address critical and difficult questions in the social sciences. With that said, I have a few major concerns about the manuscript and a handful of minor concerns.

MAJOR

• A defining and celebrated feature of PCE is the theory-experiment loop, in which simulations of perceptual crossing inform and are informed by experiments with humans. How do the authors think the PCD contributes to this rich and ongoing dialogue? Does the PCD create opportunities for novel experimental designs or analysis?

• The authors say “The biggest drawback of previous iterations is the lack of an immediate feedback for the user of their actual movements in the non-visible space” (lines 48-49). Could the authors motivate this claim more? I can see an antagonistic perspective, which would argue that not having information about location or movement makes the task more difficult and therefore success via mutual interaction more impressive or interesting. By providing participants with additional environmental information, the narrative describing successful interaction becomes more complicated to disentangle. I’d like to understand why the authors think this particular complication will benefit investigations of social interaction, beyond being an interesting engineering innovation.

• While PLOS ONE is largely a generalist journal, the intended audience for this manuscript is unclear to me. If the authors have a more engineering-oriented audience in mind, then I would expect additional explication of the PCE, its contribution to the study of social interaction, and more details about previous PCDs. If the idea audience is psychologists studying social interaction, then it seems necessary to me to report whether the modifications to this PCD (e.g. providing access to spatial information to participants) influence behavior in any way. In either case, I would like to see at least a brief discussion of how the modifications and additions to this version of PCD will contribute to the literature on PCE specifically and social interaction generally. If the authors are aiming for a multidisciplinary reach, then all of these items are important.

• The authors note several technical challenges for those without specific engineering skills. How accessible are, for example, online tutorials (e.g. YouTube) for acquiring the necessary skills to implement the PCD? This could be a damaging limitation since many researchers who might be interested in building their own PCD for human experiments likely have training in psychological science as opposed to engineering or computer science. I think this is another instance where thoughtfully considering the intended audience is important.

• The community of researchers applying the perceptual crossing paradigm is not especially large. What applications might this device have outside of perceptual crossing?

MINOR

Introduction

• Lines 6 – 8: expand on the difference made by engaging, real-time social interactions and why this difference is meaningful/pressing for studies of social behavior and social cognition.

• Lines 9 – 12: It seems worthwhile to briefly state the broad goal of the PCE at this point, in addition to the format of the experiment. I note that the authors describe the task on lines 30 – 31, but making the broad goal clear early (and later providing additional details, which the authors have done) will help readers not only understand the context of the PCE but also the contribution of the PCD to the field more broadly.

• Lines 19 – 20: The authors say the new PCD “provides a novel framework.” Is the framework simply the integration of physiological data with a sensorimotor interaction task? The nature of the framework and what about it is novel is unclear to me.

Perceptual Device System

• Please report how the (absence of) delay in sensory feedback compares to previous iterations of the PCD.

• The authors provide instructions for 3D printing materials through an external company but also include CAD files for 3D printing. Do these CAD files contain all the necessary information to 3D print all parts oneself?

• In several instances throughout the paper, what should be open quotation marks (‘) are actually end quotation marks (’). In LaTeX, an open quote is achieved with `.

Performance Validation

• Line 223: typo (“more specific the precise recording of button presses”)

• The authors note that the tactile stimulation has a mean latency of 16.2 ms and the audio stimulation has a mean latency of 3.2 ms. Given that PCE largely has a psychologically-oriented audience of researchers, it would be worthwhile to include a reference confirming that both of these latencies are shorter than a latency that is detectable by or influential to humans.

• In-text caption for Figure 13 presumably has a typo. I assume it should say auditory feedback?

• The authors note a key limitation is the rotary encoder’s resolution. It would be helpful to comment on the extent to which this resolution is detectable by humans or could possibly influence behavioral or psychophysiological data.

• Low resolution for figures 3 and 9. Could the authors provide higher resolution images?

• Could the authors discuss the longevity of the PCD? What is involved in device maintenance? To what extent and at what rate might the signal quality degrade over time?

**********

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: Haily Merritt

**********

[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 open-source perceptual crossing device for investigating brain dynamics during human interaction

PONE-D-24-06303R1

Dear Dr. Estelle,

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,

Dimitris Voudouris

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

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

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

**********

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

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Haily Merritt

**********