revision

Makefile

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 TEXBASE=nonlinearbaseline
 BIBFILE=references.bib
-REBUTTALBASE=rebuttal2
-COVERBASE=cover2
+REBUTTALBASE=rebuttal3
+COVERBASE=cover3
 
 TEXFILE=$(TEXBASE).tex
 PDFFILE=$(TEXBASE).pdf
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ PT=$(wildcard *.py)
 PYTHONFILES=$(filter-out plotstyle.py spectral.py examplecells.py, $(PT))
 PYTHONPDFFILES=$(PYTHONFILES:.py=.pdf)
 
-REVISION=eacf6ee04c2caee1c6628d1e9d96944606ce5cbb
+REVISION=0a072e27a6736cc9384ed31efac16faabb0f3af3
 
 ifdef REBUTTALBASE
 REBUTTALTEXFILE=$(REBUTTALBASE).tex

nonlinearbaseline.tex

@@ -283,7 +283,7 @@ Supported by SPP 2205 ``Evolutionary optimisation of neuronal processing'' by th
 % 250 words
 \section{Abstract}
 Spiking thresholds in neurons or rectification at synapses are essential for neuronal computations rendering neuronal processing inherently nonlinear. Nevertheless, linear response theory has been instrumental for understanding, for example, the impact of noise or neuronal synchrony on signal transmission, or the emergence of oscillatory activity, but is valid only at low stimulus amplitudes or large levels of intrinsic noise. At higher signal-to-noise ratios, however, nonlinear response components become relevant. Theoretical results for leaky integrate-and-fire neurons in the weakly nonlinear regime suggest strong responses at the sum of two input frequencies if one of these frequencies or their sum match the neuron's baseline firing rate.
-We here analyze nonlinear responses in two types of primary electroreceptor afferents, the P-units of the active and the ampullary cells of the passive electrosensory system of the wave-type electric fish \textit{Apteronotus leptorhynchus} of either sex. In our combined experimental and modeling approach we identify these predicted nonlinear responses only in individual low-noise P-units, but in more than half of the ampullary cells. Our results provide experimental evidence for nonlinear responses of spike generators in the weakly nonlinear regime. We conclude that such nonlinear responses occur in any sensory neuron that operates in similar regimes particularly at near-threshold stimulus conditions.
+We here analyze nonlinear responses in two types of primary electroreceptor afferents, the P-units of the active and the ampullary cells of the passive electrosensory system of the wave-type electric fish \textit{Apteronotus leptorhynchus} of either sex. In our combined experimental and modeling approach we identify these predicted nonlinear responses in those 31 out of 172 P-units that are characterized by low intrinsic noise. In contrast, the majority (22 out of 30) ampullary cells show nonlinear responses. Our results provide experimental evidence for nonlinear responses of spike generators in the weakly nonlinear regime. We conclude that such nonlinear responses occur in any sensory neuron that operates in similar regimes particularly at near-threshold stimulus conditions.
 
 % max 120 words
 \section{Significance statement}

rebuttal3.tex

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+\documentclass[11pt]{article}
+
+\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
+\usepackage{textcomp}
+\usepackage{xcolor}
+\usepackage{graphicx}
+
+\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}
+
+\usepackage[left=25mm, right=25mm, top=20mm, bottom=20mm]{geometry}
+\setlength{\parskip}{2ex}
+
+\usepackage[mediumqspace,Gray,squaren]{SIunits}      % \ohm, \micro
+
+\usepackage{natbib}
+%\bibliographystyle{jneurosci}
+
+\usepackage[breaklinks=true,bookmarks=true,bookmarksopen=true,pdfpagemode=UseNone,pdfstartview=FitH,colorlinks=true,citecolor=blue,urlcolor=blue]{hyperref}
+
+\newcommand{\issue}[1]{\textbf{#1}}
+\newcommand{\issueg}[1]{\foreignlanguage{ngerman}{\textbf{#1}}}
+\newcounter{responsecounter}
+\newcommand{\response}[1]{\refstepcounter{responsecounter}\begin{quote}\arabic{responsecounter}. #1\end{quote}}
+\newcommand{\note}[2][]{\textcolor{red!80!black}{\textbf{[#1: #2]}}}
+\newcommand{\notejb}[1]{\note[JB]{#1}}
+\newcommand{\notejg}[1]{\note[JG]{#1}}
+\newcommand{\notesr}[1]{\note[SR]{#1}}
+
+\newcommand{\changed}[1]{\textcolor{blue!50!black}{#1}}
+
+\setlength{\parindent}{0em}
+
+
+\begin{document}
+
+Thank you for your final positive assessment of our manuscript.
+
+\issue{\large Reviewer \#1}
+
+\issue{Line 18 In the abstract the sentence "...only in individual low-noise P-units, but in more than half of the ampullary cells". is not quite clear. Please rephrase.}
+
+\issue{\large Reviewer \#2}
+
+\issue{The authors have done an excellent job of responding to my comments. I will note that the line numbers referenced in the response letter are incorrect, which made it challenging to review these changes. However, I have just one remaining minor comment. In the abstract, line 18, the wording is still unclear. "...more than half of the ampullary cells" is clear, but "...only in individual low-noise P-units" is not. Why not precisely state that these predicted nonlinear responses were observed in X out of Y P-units?}
+
+\response{We have rephrased this sentence as requested: ``In our
+  combined experimental and modeling approach we identify these
+  predicted nonlinear responses in those 31 out of 172 P-units that
+  are characterized by low intrinsic noise. In contrast, the majority
+  (22 out of 30) ampullary cells show nonlinear responses.''}
+
+\end{document}