PONE-D-24-28073Updating the remembered position of targets following passive lateral translationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kim,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Three expert reviewers provide their detailed comments below. Please carefully address each of those comments, and emphasize more explicitly the importance of conducting the three experiments while clearly stating the respective hypotheses. In addition, please ensure that methodological decisions are clearly justified, and consider the suggested revisions about the figures. You will find further comments and suggestions in the section below.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 24 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:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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 in your Funding Statement: 

These experiments were supported by a grant from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada RGPIN-2020-06093 to LRH. 

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. 

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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

These experiments were supported by a grant from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada RGPIN-2020-06093 to LRH. We would also like to thank the Canada First Research Excellence Funded project Vision: Science to Applications (VISTA) for their support.

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: 

These experiments were supported by a grant from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada RGPIN-2020-06093 to LRH. 

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

[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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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 present work investigates the ability to successfully update virtual target positions after visual/physical passive movements in healthy participants. The methodology appears sound. In three different experiments, participants are asked to judge the location of previously seen targets, while being stationary or after being moved (virtually with visual cues or physically through a motion platform).

Generally, this study has the potential to extend previous literature about spatial updating and the relationship between self-motion and the spatial processing of the surrounding environment, but some editing is required. Below are some major and minor comments and suggestions to foster publication.

Abstract:

- Authors claimed to measure errors before and after passive translations. This makes one think of a sort of pre- and post- movements comparison, but it does not seem to be the case. Is that correct?

Introduction:

- Page 3, lines 16-18: what is the reason for introducing the usual methodologies to prevent people from using visual cues in this context? It is true that in real life, visual motion signals are fundamental (lines 19-21), but in experimental procedures, there are reasons to select specific perceptual cues (e.g., to segregate acoustic or other senses effects on self-motion or spatial updating).

- Page 4, lines 2-4: can’t object distance change during rotations as well? I imagine, for example, rotating on a swivel chair in front of my desk: if I rotate by 180°, after rotation, I will not be able to grasp desk objects anymore, being them exactly behind me. Relative to the chair, the object probably maintained the position, but relative to my arm/hand, it actually changed, perhaps preventing me from grasping it. Am I missing what the authors are saying? Maybe it could be helpful to clearly define the “distance”.

- A stronger and more thorough introduction to the reasons for conducting three different experiments and the use of both visual and physical motion information could help the reader to immediately grasp the take-home message of this work. In addition, it is not very clear which are the specific hypotheses and which is the novelty relative to the cited previous literature (references 16,17). Some new aspects are mentioned in the discussion (page 22, lines 4-6), but it would make more sense to insert them in the introduction session.

Method/Procedure:

- Page 9, line 4: can the authors clarify the reason for adding randomly generated dots on the screen? Was the screen the virtually rendered one?

- What is the reason for changing the range of target displacements, increments, duration, and velocity of motion information across the experiments? Why did the authors decide to make the dots blink in Experiment 3?

- I do not think I got the virtual visual motion information: was it consistent with a real movement, or did it consist of moving the surroundings?

- How many trials for each condition in each experiment?

Data analysis:

- Page 13, line 10: Why did the authors consider errors deviating more than 2.5 SD only as a participant mistake and not as general variability?

- If the data from the two observer positions were brought to the same side, why one of the factors of the ANOVAs is the observer position? Cannot be better to consider observer position levels like “same side vs different side” of the target instead of left and right?

Results:

- Experiment 1: In Figure 3C, it seems that Visual Motion condition favor participants to reduce errors if compared with Stationary condition. If this is correct, the authors could mention this effect more explicitly, to clarify the direction of the reported difference between conditions.

- Figure 5A and B seem inverted: in Figure 5A, the participant seems to go from the center to the left; in Figure 5B from center to the right. If that’s correct, caption should be corrected.

Discussion:

- I believe that a wider summary of the results is needed before the paragraph (page 21, lines 2-11) about Experiment 2 results.

- Page 22, lines 15-17, “In Exp 1 these updating errors resulted in smaller errors for targets that became

less eccentric as a result of the movement, and larger errors for targets that became more

eccentric”: in Figure 3C, it seems the opposite. The red line for Visual Motion condition is closer to 0 as the position of the target is further from the initial position of the participant.

- Page 24, lines 3-6: The idea that potential physical motion could have played some role in spatial updating is not totally convincing to me. The actual physical movement did not improve participants’ performance (Exp 2), so why should the potential movement have a positive effect?

- The discussion section about the “updating ratio” (from page 25, line 7) seems to me more appropriate for a results section than the discussion.

- Page 26, line 3: “1. 0”: typo

- Page 29, line 10: the example should be about humans again, for better coherence.

- Generally, I would suggest to restructure the discussion to favor a better comprehension of the results as follows: Summary of general results � Results from Exp 1 and implications � Results from Exp 2 and implications � Results from Exp 3 and implications � general implications and interpretations. In the current discussion, the updating ratio computation and the first paragraph about Exp 2 come across as confusing.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript is an important advancement in the understanding of the mechanisms of spatial updating, especially as they relate to lateral translation movements. The authors conducted three experiments in a virtual reality setting, where they manipulated in various ways, the amount of (un)certainty about self-motion.

Major comments:

1. The introduction needs a bit more expansion, especially in terms what the previous studies that have investigated spatial updating with rotational movements and how the authors might envision spatial updating will change for lateral movements. This will help to motivate the study and the specific hypotheses more.

2. The authors indicate that they conducted three experiments and have one main hypothesis outlined in the introduction. The authors should tie each experiment to the hypothesis or expand and indicate why each of the three experiments was needed.

3. There are some details in the Methods section that need to be added (e.g., the number of trials in total; whether the conditions blocked or mixed; the number of repetitions per trial type; the rooms that the experiments took place in; etc.), as well as motivation behind their approaches (and changes across the experiments). For example, why were the distances between the targets chosen, and changed, in the three experiments? How do each of the changes contribute to answering how spatial updating for lateral movements? These specific methodological motivations are important for understanding how each experiment is motivated and in what way it contributes to answering the overarching question of the manuscript.

4. For experiment 2, could the authors indicate the specific progression of information for the different conditions tested and the effect on spatial updating. For example, was the physical and visual motion condition expected to reduce uncertainty around self-motion the most and therefore, produce the smallest errors; if so, was the next best condition considered to be the physical only condition, etc.? How do the results compare to these expectations? These are very briefly covered in the discussion.

Minor point:

1. Could the authors provide an explanation as to why the experiments were conducted in virtual reality settings and not in the actual environments?

2. Why were controllers used in the first two experiments, but not in the third? How does this help to disentangle the spatial updating process for lateral movements?

Reviewer #3: Kim and Harris report that during lateral translation, subjects systematically underestimate target eccentricity, particularly for more eccentric targets, with errors influenced by whether the target crosses the observer's midline. These errors likely reflect changes in spatial updating tied to perceived self-motion and reconstructing target positions across visual fields. While the results are interesting, the manuscript would benefit from clearer data representation, both in the text and figures. Additionally, the writing (several errors) could be substantially improved (could be more compact) for better clarity and impact.

Major issues:

EXPERIMENT 1:

• The text is not clear. What is the spacing between targets? I agree that it is mentioned in the “methods’ but it is good to remind the reader of the relationships between target positions, travel range, and motion simulation. My major concern here is the overinterpretation of the main effect (page 15, lines 15-16) as reported by a significant interaction (motion and target) with p = 0.045. I suggest emphasizing the small effect size in the interaction, and a much clearer explanation for spatial updating. What are the data points to the extremes of these lines (- 0.75 and 0.75), though the translation is between – 0.5 and 0.5? Since all the subjects are right-handed, was there any hemi-field effect (it is reported that errors increased with eccentricity, it seems there is no hemifield effect but could be mentioned / investigated further)? Can the authors indicate the significance on the graph? I think it is more informative and intuitive to switch the x and y axis. The data should be plotted: Remembered target position as a function of actual target position. That way the cartoon on the right will be aligned on the x axis, thus better representing the horizontal translation (and motion). Along the same lines, instead of a columnar organization for the figure, the data could be represented in a row.

• This sentence is not clear (Page 15, lines 18-21): “In the Visual Motion condition (where sideways motion was simulated visually), the errors significantly differed (p < .001) between the targets at 0m and .25m (Targets at -0.5m and -0.25m in Fig 3A, Targets at 0.25m and 0.5m in Fig 3B).” Please clarify.

• The statement (lines 2-4, page 16) is vague: ‘suggesting that updating may be dependent on target eccentricity as well as the travel range since those targets within the range may be updated differently compared to those outside the range.’’ What does ‘differently’ mean?

• Accordingly, the spatial updating conclusion should be clearly derived. I agree that the platforms are being passively moved, given that the neck was restrained, the head did not contribute to the updating mechanism(s). Can the authors speculate in discussion how the head may contribute to it (thus reaching) in the real world?

EXPERIMENT 2:

• What led to Experiment 2 from Experiment 1? The text should begin with a reason for Experiment 2. What did the authors choose a different range (-.46 - .46) in this exp compared with Exp 1? Figure 5 seems to explain this but the decision for this range should be mentioned here too. It is also discussed in ‘discussion’. Despite that, it should be mentioned here.

• motion was 13 ±0.46m. Not clear. Is it motion (should be in m/s ) or initial position (as I see in table 1?)

• Why does Fig 4C precede 4A and 4B? The text should follow systematically with figures. I can see the effect of the target eccentricity on errors in Fig c, but the authors do not do justice to the figures by explaining them well. Furthermore, how do the authors explain the larger spread of errors during physical motion than the other two conditions? In fact, it also seems evident in 4C. I also suggest plotting these errors with all the data points.

• The authors mention (Page 18, line 1): “However, unlike in Exp 1, the errors did not differ between the motion conditions”. How do they exactly mean it? Any stats?

• Please look at my comments on EXP 1 for figures (you can go along those lines). The authors should describe visual (left), physical (middle) and full motion(left) better in the text. Again, the data can be plotted as suggested in 1. Why does the label change here to ‘Perceived target location’? Keep it consistent.

EXPERIMENT 3: See my earlier comments, however, to plot the difference between the short and long distances, the graph doesn’t help much. Can the authors think of any other way of plotting the data? Moreover, the tests they performed are rather opaque to the reader.

• Here in the text: Post hoc evaluation of paired t-test, with Holm-Bonferroni correction showed that the mean errors made for each target position significantly differed between motion conditions, where the errors shifted after moving compared to Stationary in the direction of travel for both short (p 20 = .039) and long (p < .001) travels. The errors also differed between the short and long travel 1 distances (p = .002), in which longer travel distances resulted in larger errors.

• How do confirm the above effect in both directions? Are the data pooled (normalized) for both directions? Please clarify.

• Can the authors plot the data (errors) in the spatiotemporal domain: errors as a function of the reaction time?

• I suggest moving the figures from discussion into the results section. This will help to further streamline the discussion section (to make it shorter).

• The authors could discuss a neural mechanism involving the integration of spatial information at the neural across brain areas. While Dash et al. (2015) [Continuous Updating of Visuospatial Memory in Superior Colliculus during Slow Eye Movements] focus on the gaze system, the authors might suggest something along these lines for the reaching system. In other words, how the gaze system may be involved in updating reaching plans, while also discussing perception of self-motion.

Other issues:

• Introduction: Needs to be streamlined (and could be more compact) with clear hypotheses. Should briefly mention results and conclusion.

• Discussion: Needs to be substantially shortened.

• Line 13: omit ‘of course’ and several other instances where the language is not scientific (e.g., obviously).

• Page 21, lines 14-15. These results could be mentioned in the results section.

• Remove contractions such as: ‘didn’t’ should be replaced with ‘did not’.

• What is the size of the virtual tennis ball?

• What does a passive movement mean? A little detail would be beneficial for the reader.

• Page 6, line 14: what is FOV?

• Make sure the units are represented consistently and with a ‘space’ between the value.

• Figure 2 (E): In the figure I see the background white rectangle. If this is the case, the participants can use it as an allocentric landmark. Did the experiments simulate darkness? I understand that there was some virtual background to the scene. What us the color of the fixation dot and other features during presentation?

• At several instances the text should read ‘compared with’ instead of ‘compared to’. These two have specific meanings.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review_KIM and HARRIS.docx

PONE-D-24-28073R1Updating the remembered position of targets following passive lateral translationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kim,

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 minor points raised during the review process. Please refer below to some minor issues that are spotted by Reviewer 2 and prepare a revised version of the manuscript based on these remarks. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 22 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:

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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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: The authors have made great efforts to address the comments.

I have a few minor points left:

1. The section on the updating ratio should be moved to the analysis (Methods) section - it sticks out in its current position.

2. While I appreciate that the authors are trying to highlight the similarities and differences in the procedure section for the three experiments, I would prefer a more detailed description for each experiment first, followed by a short section where similarities and differences are highlighted. This will make the interpretation of the results even easier.

3. A summary paragraph at the end of the discussion section would be useful.

4. Some additional proofreading is required; though, these are very minor.

Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed all my comments and concerns and also provided further clarifications. This work significantly enhances our understanding of perceptual processes during self-motion especially during lateral translation. Good work.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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.

Updating the remembered position of targets following passive lateral translation

PONE-D-24-28073R2

Dear Dr. Kim,

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 #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 #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: (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 #2: No

**********