Dear Dr. Proverbio,

I received evaluations from two experts and, as you can see below, their opinions are conflicting: the first reviewer is very positive about your work, the second reviewer, on the other hand, is very critical on several points. I appreciate the viewpoint of both of them and thank them very much and therefore I decided to give you the opportunity to convince both reviewers in a major revision. I cannot guarantee that another round of revisions will lead to the publication of the manuscript, but I recommend that you focus on both theoretical (e.g., justifying the imaginative paradigm) and statistical aspects.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 21 2025 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.

• 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,

Giulia Prete

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“ATE – Fondo di Ateneo No. 31159-2019-ATE-0064, University of Milano-Bicocca”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that “All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files. The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author mado.proverbio@unimib.it upon request. Due to privacy restrictions, some data may not be shared publicly.”

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

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.

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Dear Editor,

I have carefully read and evaluated the manuscript titled "Decoding Motivational States and Craving through Electrical Markers for Neural 'Mind Reading’". The paper presents a highly innovative and valuable contribution to the fields of cognitive neuroscience and BCI. By integrating ecologically grounded auditory-evocative prompts with event-related potentials and source localization techniques, the authors elegantly demonstrate that distinct motivational and physiological states yield differential electrophysiological signatures. This fine-grained neuromarker-based decoding of mental states opens up fascinating new avenues for both theoretical modeling and potential translational applications.

Below, I provide specific comments and suggestions aimed at further refining and clarifying this already impressive piece of work:

Major Suggestions for Minor Revision:

Graphical Clarity in Figures 4 and 7

While the data visualizations are generally effective, I recommend improving the readability of the axis labels in Figures 4 and 7, particularly along the x-axis. These appear overly compressed or poorly contrasted, especially when compared to the more legible formatting seen in Figure 9. For consistency and accessibility, the same graphical standards should be uniformly applied across all figures.

Effect Size Reporting in ANOVAs

To enhance the statistical transparency and reproducibility of the findings, I strongly encourage the authors to report effect size metrics—specifically partial eta squared (η²) and epsilon (ε) values—for all ANOVAs performed. While significance testing provides valuable information, effect sizes offer a more nuanced understanding of the strength and practical relevance of observed differences. Given the complexity and richness of the ERP data across multiple states and components, effect size indices are essential for readers to assess the robustness and scope of the effects reported.

Subsectioning the Discussion

The Discussion would greatly benefit from clearer structure through the use of sub-paragraphs or thematic subheadings. Given the breadth of the results—ranging from component-specific findings (e.g., N400, P400) to source localization and state-by-state interpretations—organizing the discussion around these axes would improve clarity and reader engagement. Suggested subheadings might include: Component-Specific Effects, State-Specific Activations, Theoretical Implications, and Future Directions.

Minor Language and Style Adjustments

The manuscript is generally well-written and the scientific language is appropriate. However, I suggest minor improvements to fluency and idiomatic expression. For instance:

Page 10, line 287:

Instead of:

"Has it been mentioned (in this experimental sequence) to desire a nice plate of pasta with meat sauce?"

I suggest: "Has the notion of desiring a plate of pasta with meat sauce emerged at any juncture during the course of this experimental sequence?" This revised phrasing better aligns with the formal tone of the manuscript and enhances clarity.

Reviewer #2: Unfortunately, despite its strong sides, the study suffers from some conceptual and methodological weaknesses, which, in my opinion, prevent publication. Most important are pointed out below:

Aim is presented as detecting markers of different motivational and physiological states. However, the study uses imagery and does not induce these states. However, while the relationship between imagery and real states is covered in the introduction, the described aim of the study remains misleading.

The introduction seems to only partially cover the current literature, and sometimes the findings seem to be picked up from the literature pool to support a particular claim rather than present the existing views. For example, citing data showing that activation of mPFC is related to positive scenarios, while many studies support the role of this area in self-referential processes with no regard to valence.

I am also concerned about the number of different states that the Authors wanted to induce during the relatively long procedure. I doubt whether it was possible to keep participants really involved and deeply following such diverse and altering imagery states. Especially since these states are expected to induce specific bodily states.

The components of the evoked potentials are interpreted as responses for imagery. This is also seriously problematic for me, as the exact timing and intensity for imagery cannot be determined. I’m afraid that the discussed ERP components are the responses for a cue (frame) as the only well temporally defined stimulus. The Authors do not convince me that they observe imagery-evoked responses.

The parameters and settings of source localization are not reported at all. This is not trivial, as localization methodology is very susceptible to improper settings.

The final analysis includes only 23 participants, which is a small sample and does not keep up with the current standards. Especially facing the number of analyses (variables and their levels).

It would be beneficial to report not only anova differences between categories but also confusion matrices, as the aim of the study was focused towards mind reading.

**********

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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures 

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. 

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Reinstating Motivational States: Electrical Signatures of Craving and Neural Mind Reading

PONE-D-24-53416R1

Dear Dr. Proverbio,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Giulia Prete

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

One of the original Reviewer is unable to revise the present version of the manuscript, but I have carefully evaluated the revision and I am happy to endorse the publication of the manuscript in its present form.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors have satisfactorily addressed all the concerns raised during the review process. The revisions are thorough, well-executed, and significantly strengthen the manuscript. I am pleased with the outcome and recommend the paper for acceptance

**********

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

**********