finished figure 3

rebuttal2.tex

@@ -250,7 +250,16 @@
   frequencies to illustrate these and it is not clear why these are
   clipped in these two figures.}
 
-\response{HM. LETS CHECK HOW IT LOOKS LIKE. BUT THIS LOW FREQUENCY RANGE IS THE RELEVANT ONE FOR CODING.}
+\response{You are right. In figure 4 we show now the spectrum up to
+  750Hz, such that fEOD and its interactions with df2 and harmonics
+  are included. We labeled the additonal peaks accordingly. In figure
+  3 we stay with the small range, because we have so little data (only
+  three trials of 500ms duration) for this special setting where one
+  of the beat frequencies approximately matches the P-units baseline
+  firing rate. This is why the power spectra are very noisy. Also, for
+  an introductory figure we prefer to only show the few peaks that are
+  relevant for the rest of the manuscript, such that the reader does
+  not get overwhelmed.  }
 
 \issue{(6) Figure 3. Why are these example firing rates based on
   convolution with a 1 ms Gaussian kernel if the analyses were based
@@ -259,7 +268,9 @@
   actually analyzed. More fundamentally, why would a 2-fold difference
   in kernel width be appropriate for presentation vs. analysis?}
 
-\response{DAMN. LETS REDO THE FIGURE.}
+\response{This was for historical reasons. We updated figure 3 to also
+  use the 2ms kernel. Now all firing rates in the manuscript are based
+  on the 2ms kernel.}
 
 \issue{(7) Figure 3D legend. The relationship between 2nd order AM
   (envelope) and the two nonlinear peaks should be made clear. I