all issues addressed!

rebuttal2.tex

@@ -54,7 +54,8 @@
   like to offer several suggestions that may serve to either enhance
   the manuscript or inspire future research endeavors.}
 
-\response{}
+\response{Thank you for trying to make our manuscript more
+  biologist-friendly!}
 
 \issue{First, I should point out that beyond the presence of a
   threshold-induced nonlinearity, the complex structure of the
@@ -67,7 +68,7 @@
   in Cellular Neuroscience, 13, 354. for a discussion of the general
   case and the study by Troy Smith, Unguez and Weber (2006, Fig. 3) in
   which receptor cells of tuberous electroreceptor organs and their
-  afferents from Apteronotus leptorhinchus were labeled to varying
+  afferents from Apteronotus leptorhynchus were labeled to varying
   degrees by six anti-Kv1 antibodies. Kv1.1 and Kv1.4 immunoreactivity
   was intense in the afferent axons of electroreceptor organs. It is
   noteworthy that Kv1 are low-threshold channels and, in some cases,
@@ -76,16 +77,15 @@
   strengthen the links between well-written theoretical analysis and
   the practical field of experimental physiology.}
 
-\response{READ PAPERS AND CITE THEM You are right, there are more
-  nonlinear mechanisms potentially contributiong to the threshold
-  nonlinearity. We now mention this in the methods when introducing
-  the threshold nonlinearity (after eq. 13) and cite the corresponding
-  manuscripts. We also added a paragraph to the methods reiterating
-  what we have in the discusssion, that the details of this
-  nonlinearity are not so important in the context of the present
-  manuscript, since we compute all cross-spectra between the resulting
-  amplitude modulation and the spikes responses. MAYBE ALSO IN THE
-  CONCLUSION.}
+\response{You are right, there are more nonlinear mechanisms
+  potentially contributing to the threshold nonlinearity. We now
+  mention this in the methods when introducing the threshold
+  nonlinearity (after eq. 13) and cite the corresponding
+  manuscripts. We also added a sentence there reiterating what we have
+  in the discussion, namely that the details of this nonlinearity are
+  not important in the context of the present manuscript, since we
+  compute all cross-spectra between the resulting amplitude modulation
+  and the spikes responses.}
 
 \issue{Second, and along the same lines, the discussion could be
   improved by mentioning the effects and significance of these
@@ -94,7 +94,8 @@
   interference avoidance responses, and b) transient changes, as in
   chirps.}
 
-\response{HERE: STATIONARY ANALYSIS, CHIRPS ARE TRANSIENT, NEEDS RESEARCH. JAR SIGNALS are slow but change continously so they might hit the baseline frequency Add something somewhere around line 660.}
+\response{We added a paragraph addressing JARs, chirps, and rises to
+  the discussion (lines 695 -- 703).}
 
 \issue{Finally, the precise description of the methods could be
   expanded for reaching a broader biology audience; in particular, the
@@ -103,8 +104,6 @@
   first reading of the methods, although accurate, does not offer the
   biology reader a quick and intuitive approach to the study.}
 
-\response{IMPROVE METHOD DESCRIPTION AS DESCRIBED BELOW}
-
 \issue{Next, I list some minor more detailed comments that may clarify
   the design and methods and facilitate their understanding by a
   broader audience.}
@@ -118,11 +117,12 @@
   between the extreme profiles of P (signal amplitude) and T (signal
   slope)?}
 
-\response{In \textit{Apteronotus} T-units are characterized by 1:1
-  locking to the EOD, i.e. by having a baseline firing rate matching
-  the EOD frequency. We definitely have no T-units in our data
-  set. This we explain now in the ``Identification of P-units and
-  ampullary cells'' section in the methods.}
+\response{T-units are characterized by 1:1 locking to the EOD, i.e. by
+  having a baseline firing rate matching the EOD frequency. We
+  definitely have no T-units in our data set, since our P-unit firing
+  rates are well below the EOD frequencies. This we explain now in the
+  ``Identification of P-units and ampullary cells'' section in the
+  methods.}
 
 \issue{In line 147, rather than using the term
   "laterally," I believe it would enhance clarity to state "parallel
@@ -137,7 +137,10 @@
   field foveal perioral region where the majority of receptors are
   located.}
 
-\response{ADD SOMETHING TO STIMULATION SECTION LINE 110}
+\response{As stated in ``Experimental subjects and procedures'', all
+  recordings were done in the posterior lateral line nerve. So we did
+  not record from the foveal perioral region, and hence this problem
+  is not relevant.}
 
 \issue{Line 148, the phrase "band limited white noise" lacks
   clarity. Upon my initial reading, I assumed that the cutoff limit
@@ -153,7 +156,8 @@
   could benefit from greater clarity to avoid the need to explore the
   results first in order to understand well.}
 
-\response{STATE TYPE OF FILTERING IN STIMULATION SECTION, CITE ALES SKORJANC}
+\response{We added a sentence that describes how we generate those
+  stimuli in the Fourier domain (lines 156--160).}
 
 \issue{Line 154. This procedure elicits a modulation of the envelope
   of the reafferent signal. To achieve this, you adopted distinct
@@ -163,7 +167,10 @@
   averaged sine wave recorded via local electrodes adjacent to the
   gills exhibited an increase of 1 to 5\%, is this correct?}
 
-\response{NO! EXPLAIN AND ENHANCE STIMULATION SECTION}
+\response{No! We increased the amplitude of the white noise until the
+  standard deviation (not the mean) of the resulting modulation of the
+  EOD reached 1 to 5\,\%. We rephrased the description of the
+  stimulation and hope that this is clearer now (lines 164--168).}
 
 \issue{b) with regard to P receptors, you multiplied the head-to-tail
   ongoing signal by a white noise signal and played the resultant
@@ -184,7 +191,17 @@
   on the peaks of the signal themselves? How does this affect the
   recruitment of P and T receptors?}
 
-\response{ALL THESE DETAILS DO NOT MATTER AT THE LEVL OF INDIVIDUAL P-UNITS. SEE HLADNIK.}
+\response{You are right about the phase shifts and that this does not
+  ``significantly impact individual receptors response''. This is a
+  standard stimulation procedure for characterizing receptor responses
+  that are located mainly on the sides of a fish's flat body. See, for
+  example, Hladnik and Grewe, 2023. And yes, this will probably impact
+  relative spike timing in distinct receptors and thus may also impact
+  the JAR mechanisms. However, this manuscript is about single
+  receptor responses and not about T-units, and we feel it is already
+  complicated enough. Therefore we would rather prefer to not open up
+  all these issues, since they are not relevant for the results we
+  present.}
 
 \issue{Line 238. Are you referring to the terminal non-myelinated
   branches that connect receptor cells to the initial Ranvier node?
@@ -200,7 +217,9 @@
   organ. Could you discuss this aspect, considering the anatomical
   structure of the receptor in your species?}
 
-\response{READ LITERATURE AND SAY A FEW WORDS}
+\response{Exactly. We slightly expanded our description to make clear
+  that we talk about the signal transduction until it reaches the
+  spike initiation zone (lines 258 -- 259).}
 
 
 \issue{\large Reviewer \#2}
@@ -252,15 +271,16 @@
   clipped in these two figures.}
 
 \response{You are right. In figure 4 we show now the spectrum up to
-  750\,Hz, such that $f_{EOD}$ and its interactions with $\Delta f_2$
-  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 for this special setting where one of the beat
-  frequencies approximately matches the P-units baseline firing rate
-  (only three trials of 500ms duration). 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.}
+  950\,Hz, such that $f_{EOD}$ and its interactions with $f_1$ and
+  $f_2$ are included. We labeled the additional peaks and expanded the
+  figure caption accordingly. In figure 3 we stay with the small
+  range, because we have so little data for this special setting where
+  one of the beat frequencies approximately matches the P-units
+  baseline firing rate (only three trials of 500ms duration). 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
@@ -269,13 +289,13 @@
   actually analyzed. More fundamentally, why would a 2-fold difference
   in kernel width be appropriate for presentation vs. analysis?}
 
-\response{This was for historical reasons. We now decided to use the
+\response{This was for ``historical'' reasons. We now decided to use the
   1\,ms kernel for all figures and analysis. In doing so we also added
   panels showing firing rates in addition to the response spectra in
   figure 4. Using the more narrow kernel better reveals the details of
   the time course of the firing rate and this way improves the
   connection between the firing rate and the response spectra. In
-  figure 10, middel column, the range of possible values of the
+  figure 10, middle column, the range of possible values of the
   response modulations is a bit enlarged by using the 1\,ms kernel,
   but the correlations and their significance did not change a lot
   either.}
@@ -289,12 +309,12 @@
   stimulus. We added a sentence to the end of the figure caption to
   make this clear.\\
   If it were the power spectrum of the signal after it passed
-  a non-linearity (rectification or threhsolding at zero), then there
+  a non-linearity (rectification or thresholding at zero), then there
   could be also peaks at the sum and difference of the beat
   frequencies. However, since they are close to the higher one of the
   two beat frequencies they do not show up in the AM as obviously as
   for the settings used in the social envelope papers by Eric Fortune
-  and Andre Longtin and colleges (I guess this is what you have in
+  and Andre Longtin and colleges (I guess this is what you had in
   mind).}
 
 \issue{(8) Line 302. "not-small amplitude" is arbitrary and
@@ -324,12 +344,12 @@
 \response{Yes, in figure 4 increasing stimulus contrast results in
   stronger nonlinearities. There the stimuli are narrow-band sine
   waves. However, as pointed out in the context of figure 7, when
-  using a broad-band noise stimulus instead, this stimulus by itselfs
+  using a broad-band noise stimulus instead, this stimulus by itself
   adds background noise to the system that linearizes the
   response. That is why the susceptibilities estimated from noise
   stimuli decrease for higher stimulus contrasts.\\
   We added a whole paragraph at the beginning of this section to make
-  this clear.}
+  this clear (line 477 -- 482).}
 
 \issue{(12) Lines 655-675. This was a very nice end to the discussion,
   but I would like to see more. I would like the broader significance
@@ -343,6 +363,16 @@
   reiterate these points briefly and delve into more detail on
   comparative considerations.}
 
-\response{UH. LETS THINK ABOUT IT.}
+\response{We also like to see more on this, but we feel that we
+  already speculated enough. Without further studies on the readout of
+  the receptor responses, we cannot make any convincing claim about
+  whether and how weakly nonlinear interactions are actually utilized
+  in a neural system. The problem is that a match of one of the
+  stimulating frequencies or their sum with the neuron's baseline
+  firing rate is required. This is all addressed in the (now second
+  final) paragraph of the ``Nonlinear encoding in P-units'' section.
+  However, we agree that the comparative aspect of the conclusion
+  could be expanded. We therefore added one more final speculative
+  sentence to the conclusion.}
 
 \end{document}