Impact of imperceptible motion delay in avatar head movement away from a target on preference formation

Zixiang Yue; Yoshihiro Nakata; Hiroshi Ishiguro

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0328979

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 17, 2025
8 May 2025 Decision Letter - Mohammad Mofatteh, Editor PONE-D-25-07431Impact of imperceptible motion delay in avatar head movement away from a target on preference formationPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yue, 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 provide detailed and point-by-point response to all the comments. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 22 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. 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, Dr. Mohammad Mofatteh, PhD, MPH, MSc, PGCert, BSc (Hons), MB BCh (c) 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 in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: [This work was supported by the Japan Science and Technology Agency Moonshot Research and Development Program under Grant JPMJMS2011.] 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: [This work was funded by Japan Science and Technology Agency Moonshot Research and Development Program (grant #JPMJMS2011). The URL is "https://www.jst.go.jp/moonshot/en/index.html". YN and HI were the authors who received award from the mentioned funder. No sponsors or funders had a role in the 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. 3. 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. 4. We are unable to open your Figure file [Fig3.eps]. Please kindly revise as necessary and re-upload. 5. 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: Please provide detailed and point-by-point response to all the comments. [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: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: 1. The introduction gives a general overview but does not explain the problem addressed or why the proposed method is novel in comparison to earlier work. 2. The article does not provide comprehensive descriptions of the steps involved in data collection and signal processing; this should be improved. 3. The statistical methods used for data analysis are not explained in detail; it should be explained more thoroughly how the tests were conducted and whether the expectations of the proposed method were met. 4. The results section clearly presents the findings, but a more thorough discussion of statistical significance and effect sizes is advised. 5. The main text does not adequately explain certain figures. It is advised that the narrative include explicit citations and interpretations for all figures and tables. 6: The discussion section does not thoroughly examine the ramifications of the findings and is somewhat short. It is necessary to conduct a more thorough examination of how these findings add to the corpus of current knowledge. Reviewer #2: The paper is original scientific in nature and concerns the delay of avatar head movement away from the target for preference formation. For a better clarification, please edit your paper as follows: However, it should be noted that the authors should make some corrections in the article. 1. Fig. 1 should be expanded for references that should be included in the content - all other drawings have one, and the specificity of the presented system even requires that should be presented in this way. The readability of the course shown in Figure 1 should be improved. In addition, the results shown in Figure 1 have been described too scarcely, it is recommended to extend the description of point Head-movement intervention method using motion delay (page 2), so that the reader can obtain more information. 2. Expand the text of the manuscript (or the introduction or conclusion) with specific results in the world and in Europe, - increase the quality of the work by listing the results of publications of researchers and experts working in this field registered in world databases. These are: Analysis of the possibilities of tire-defect inspection based on unsupervised learning and deep learning (21, DOI 10.3390/s21217073), Collaborative assembly task realization using selected type of a human-robot interaction (DOI 10.1016/j.trpro.2019.07.078), Implementation of predictive models in industrial machines with proposed automatic adaptation algorithm (DOI 10.3390/app12041853) and Solutions to the characteristic equation for industrial robot's elliptic trajectories (DOI10.17559/TV-20150114112458) thanks. The presented literature is accurate, but most of the indicated items are from one country (Japan), it is recommended to extend it by several additional foreign items. 3. figures 1should be contrasting and readable, 4. conclusions and future work should be extended to contain practical applications based on research described in this paper - expand references, 5. if possible, highlight the course of dependencies/relations in figure No. 1 - the yellow color is indistinct, 6. For ARTICLE type, 19 references are not enough. Please add more references (>19) during your revisions. I recommend publishing the post after the proposed modifications. ****** 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: Yes: Pavol Bozek ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328979.r001
Revision 1
1 Jul 2025 Author Response Response to Editor: Comment 1 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. Answer Thank you for your suggestion regarding the deposition of laboratory protocols on protocols.io. We appreciate the opportunity to improve the reproducibility of our study. However, we believe that the experimental procedures and system architecture have already been described in sufficient detail in the main text of our manuscript. Therefore, we would prefer to proceed without submitting a separate protocol to protocols.io at this time. Please let us know if further clarification is required. Comment 2 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. Answer Based on this requirement, we downloaded the LaTeX template from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex. Our manuscript has been formatted accordingly using this template, and the naming conventions for the figures and appendices have also been adjusted to comply with the submission system's requirements. Comment 3 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: [This work was supported by the Japan Science and Technology Agency Moonshot Research and Development Program under Grant JPMJMS2011.] 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: [This work was funded by Japan Science and Technology Agency Moonshot Research and Development Program (grant #JPMJMS2011). The URL is "https://www.jst.go.jp/moonshot/en/index.html". YN and HI were the authors who received award from the mentioned funder. No sponsors or funders had a role in the 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. Answer Based on this suggestion, we removed “This work was supported by the Japan Science and Technology Agency Moonshot Research and Development Program under Grant JPMJMS2011” from the Acknowledgments section and revised it as “We thank the two reviewers for their excellent feedback, which has improved this manuscript.” Comment 4 3. 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. Answer Based on this suggestion, we uploaded the dataset to Figshare. It is available at the following URL: https://figshare.com/s/91351a3e40c26e35ae9f. Comment 5 4. We are unable to open your Figure file [Fig3.eps]. Please kindly revise as necessary and re-upload. Answer We appreciate your bringing this issue to our attention. We have recreated Fig3.eps and confirmed that it can now be opened without any issues. The corrected version of Fig3.eps has been re-uploaded. Comment 6 5. 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. Answer Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. We have reviewed all the references cited in our manuscript and confirmed that none have been retracted. Response to Reviewer: 1 Comment 1 1. The introduction gives a general overview but does not explain the problem addressed or why the proposed method is novel in comparison to earlier work. Answer　 Based on this suggestion, we compared the present study with our previous work to highlight the novelty of the proposed method. Two key reasons are outlined in the introduction. First, our previous approach required the calibration of three parameters to ensure that the manipulation remained imperceptible to the operators. In contrast, the current method requires only a single parameter, which significantly simplifies the implementation of the avatar system. Second, unlike traditional approaches that aim to minimize motion delay because of its negative impact on user experience, our method intentionally leverages subtle motion delay as a tool to achieve cognitive influence. Introduction, Paragraph 4 is revised as follows: 　　“However, a limitation of our previous study was the need to determine three parameters: the imperceptible speed of the avatar's head when the operator’s head was stationary, moving toward the target, or moving away from the target. The measurement of these parameters is complex, which may hinder the practical application of the proposed method. However, motion delay---an inherent characteristic of teleoperation systems\cite{farajiparvar2020brief} that disrupts operators' intentional movements---is often regarded as a negative factor impacting user experience in avatar operations\cite{claypool2006latency,kim2021impact}, particularly when the delay is significant. Although motion delay has traditionally been viewed as a negative factor in teleoperation systems, it is worth investigating whether such delays---particularly when subtle and imperceptible---can be positively applied. For example, motion delay may be leveraged to influence human cognition, such as shaping perceptual judgments or guiding preference formation during observational tasks.” Introduction, Paragraph 5 is revised as follows: 　　“In this study, we proposed a method that leverages motion delay to prevent the operator from looking away from a target, thereby facilitating the development of a preference for that target. Compared to our previous study---which required a complex measurement of three separate parameters to ensure the imperceptibility of head movement manipulation---the current approach simplifies the process by using only a single parameter: motion delay. Notably, although motion delay is typically considered a negative factor that should be minimized in teleoperation systems, our approach utilizes it constructively. Specifically, this delay negatively affects preference formation toward non-target objects. By introducing a subtle motion delay when the operator attempts to shift their gaze away from the target, we hypothesized that this delay would make it harder to observe the non-target in that direction, thereby enhancing the preference of the operator for the target. We aimed to explore the potential of motion delay as a subtle and effective mechanism for influencing operator behavior. To achieve this, we developed a system capable of introducing motion delays, specifically when the head of the avatar moves away from the target object. In the main experiment, we aimed to intentionally influence preference formation toward computer-generated faces using these imperceptible motion delays. Specific delay values were determined based on the results of a pilot study. Our findings demonstrated that imperceptible motion delays in avatar operations can be used to intentionally influence preference formation.” Comment 2 2. The article does not provide comprehensive descriptions of the steps involved in data collection and signal processing; this should be improved. Answer Based on this suggestion, we added a subsection “Data collection and processing” in Section “Materials and methods”. We described the collection of data in the first paragraph and subsequently mentioned how to process the data we collected in the second paragraph. Materials and methods, Data collection and processing, Paragraph 1 is written as follows: 　　“In the preference formation influence experiment, operators were required to rotate their head to observe each face image at least five times per trial. For each trial, we recorded the yaw rotation angles of both $Head_{opr}$ and $Head_{avtr}$ at each time step. Additionally, to evaluate the extent to which the operator’s choices aligned with the target faces, we recorded the direction of the target face and the operator’s final selection for each trial.” Materials and methods, Data collection and processing, Paragraph 2 is written as follows: 　　“For each trial, we plotted the yaw rotation angles of both $Head_{opr}$ and $Head_{avtr}$ over time to visualize their movement paths. To ensure data quality, we excluded an operator’s data if they failed to observe each face image at least five times in three or more trials. This criterion was used to ensure sufficient engagement with stimuli. To evaluate how well the operators’ final selections matched the target faces, we counted the number of trials (out of ten) in which each operator selected the target face. These counts were then compared to the expected frequency under a random selection scenario (50\%) using a one-tailed paired-samples t-test to evaluate the impact of the intervention. This analysis was conducted in Python using the function \texttt{scipy.stats.ttest\_rel}. Prior to the t-test, the normality of the data distribution was assessed using the Shapiro--Wilk test, implemented via \texttt{scipy.stats.shapiro}. In addition to assessing statistical significance, we calculated Cohen’s d to evaluate the size of the effect (\nameref{S4_Appendix}).” Comment 3 3. The statistical methods used for data analysis are not explained in detail; it should be explained more thoroughly how the tests were conducted and whether the expectations of the proposed method were met. Answer Based on this suggestion, we provided a detailed explanation of how the statistical tests were conducted in the second paragraph of the "Data Collection and Processing" subsection. A one-tailed paired-samples t-test and Shapiro–Wilk test were performed using the Python functions. Cohen’s d was also calculated with Python, and the corresponding code is provided in Appendix S4. Materials and methods, Data collection and processing, Paragraph 1 is written as follows: 　　“For each trial, we plotted the yaw rotation angles of both $Head_{opr}$ and $Head_{avtr}$ over time to visualize their movement paths. To ensure data quality, we excluded an operator’s data if they failed to observe each face image at least five times in three or more trials. This criterion was used to ensure sufficient engagement with stimuli. To evaluate how well the operators’ final selections matched the target faces, we counted the number of trials (out of ten) in which each operator selected the target face. These counts were then compared to the expected frequency under a random selection scenario (50\%) using a one-tailed paired-samples t-test to evaluate the impact of the intervention. This analysis was conducted in Python using the function \texttt{scipy.stats.ttest\_rel}. Prior to the t-test, the normality of the data distribution was assessed using the Shapiro--Wilk test, implemented via \texttt{scipy.stats.shapiro}. In addition to assessing statistical significance, we calculated Cohen’s d to evaluate the size of the effect (\nameref{S4_Appendix}).” We explained whether the expectations of the proposed method were met in the “Results” section. “Results” section is revised as follows: 　　“The results of the preference formation experiment are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3}. On average, participants selected the target face as their preferred option 59.2\% of the time, exceeding the 50\% chance level. The Shapiro--Wilk test confirmed that the data did not significantly deviate from normality, \emph{p} = 0.393. A one-tailed paired-samples t-test showed that participants selected the target face significantly more often than by chance (\emph{M} = 59.2\%, \emph{SD} = 1.56), \emph{t}(23) = 2.88, \emph{p} = 0.004, Cohen's d = 0.83, indicating a large size effect.” Comment 4 4. The results section clearly presents the findings, but a more thorough discussion of statistical significance and effect sizes is advised. Answer Information on statistical significance and effect sizes is included in the “Results” section. 　　“The results of the preference formation experiment are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3}. On average, participants selected the target face as their preferred option 59.2\% of the time, exceeding the 50\% chance level. The Shapiro--Wilk test confirmed that the data did not significantly deviate from normality, \emph{p} = 0.393. A one-tailed paired-samples t-test showed that participants selected the target face significantly more often than by chance (\emph{M} = 59.2\%, \emph{SD} = 1.56), \emph{t}(23) = 2.88, \emph{p} = 0.004, Cohen's d = 0.83, indicating a large size effect.” Comment 5 5. The main text does not adequately explain certain figures. It is advised that the narrative include explicit citations and interpretations for all figures and tables. Answer Based on this suggestion, we have included explicit citations and interpretations for all three figures. Figure 1, mentioned in the first paragraph of Section “Materials and methods”, subsection “Head-movement intervention method using motion delay.” 　　“We propose a head-movement intervention method that introduces motion delay to subtly prevent avatar head movement, denoted as $Head_{avtr}$, from aligning with operator head movement, denoted as $Head_{opr}$ (Fig~\ref{fig1}). As illustrated in Fig~\ref{fig1}a, the operator wears a head-mounted display and observes objects, including the target object, through a virtual avatar system. Our proposed method introduces a motion delay when the operator attempts to look at a non-target object. Therefore, in the context of observing two objects, no motion delay is introduced when $Head_{opr}$ moves toward the target object or is considered stationary. During this process, the movement of $Head_{avtr}$ was fully synchronized with that of $Head_{opr}$, thereby ensuring ease of operator observation. However, when the operator moves the head away from the target to observe another object, an imperceptible motion delay is applied to the movement of $Head_{avtr}$. This delay temporarily halts the movement of $Head_{avtr}$ for a brief period, resulting in a slight desynchronization between $Head_{opr}$ and $Head_{avtr}$ (Fig~\ref{fig1}b). Once the delay period ends, $Head_{avtr}$ starts following the trajectory of $Head_{o Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328979.r002
10 Jul 2025 Decision Letter - Mohammad Mofatteh, Editor Impact of imperceptible motion delay in avatar head movement away from a target on preference formation PONE-D-25-07431R1 Dear Dr. Yue, 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, Mohammad Mofatteh, PhD, MPH, MSc, PGCert, BSc (Hons), MB BCh (c) Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors have adequately addressed the previous comments and the overall structure and scientific content are clear and coherent. Reviewer #2: The authors accepted the comments, I recommend the paper to be published. The authors accepted the comments, I recommend the paper to be published. The authors accepted the comments, I recommend the paper to be published. The authors accepted the comments, I recommend the paper to be published. ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328979.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Mohammad Mofatteh, Editor PONE-D-25-07431R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yue, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Mohammad Mofatteh Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328979.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .