Benjamins last comments on manuscript and rebuttal

rebuttal2.tex

@@ -33,9 +33,9 @@
 
 \begin{document}
 
-Thank you for your valuable feedback. Line numbers mentioned in our
-responses refer to the new version of the manuscript, not the redlined
-one.
+We would like to thank both reviewers for their valuable
+feedback. Note that line numbers mentioned in our following responses refer to
+the new version of the manuscript, not the redlined one.
 
 \issue{\large Reviewer \#1}
 
@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ one.
   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.}
+  articles.}
 
 \issue{Second, and along the same lines, the discussion could be
   improved by mentioning the effects and significance of these
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ one.
   chirps.}
 
 \response{We added a paragraph addressing JARs, chirps, and rises to
-  the discussion (lines 695 -- 703).}
+  the discussion (lines 697--705).}
 
 \issue{Finally, the precise description of the methods could be
   expanded for reaching a broader biology audience; in particular, the
@@ -157,8 +157,24 @@ one.
   could benefit from greater clarity to avoid the need to explore the
   results first in order to understand well.}
 
-\response{We added a sentence that describes how we generate those
-  stimuli in the Fourier domain (lines 156--160).}
+\response{We are sorry for the confusion. The cutoff frequencies
+  stated are pure stimulus parameters and not related to the filtering
+  performed by the respective neurons. ``White noise'' refers to a
+  time series that has equal power at all frequencies (like white
+  light) --- this choice of signal is agnostic with respect to the
+  preferred time scales of the system because all frequencies (or,
+  timescales) appear equally on the stimulus side. Bandpass-limited
+  white noise has equal power at all frequencies up to a cutoff
+  frequency that the experimenters choose in order to distribute the
+  total power over a reasonable frequency range in which they expect a
+  measurable response of the system under investigation. The choice
+  was different for ampullary receptors and P-units as stated in the
+  manuscript, but the stated values are not related with the actual
+  bandpass filtering that the neurons perform on the input
+  stimulus. The latter are quantified in the paper when we look at the
+  linear and nonlinear response functions of the cells. We completely
+  rewrote the description of the white-noise stimuli in the methods
+  sections (lines 155--160).}
 
 \issue{Line 154. This procedure elicits a modulation of the envelope
   of the reafferent signal. To achieve this, you adopted distinct
@@ -171,7 +187,7 @@ one.
 \response{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).}
+  stimulation and hope that this is clearer now (lines 166--169).}
 
 \issue{b) with regard to P receptors, you multiplied the head-to-tail
   ongoing signal by a white noise signal and played the resultant
@@ -221,7 +237,7 @@ one.
 
 \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).}
+  spike initiation zone (lines 260--261).}
 
 
 \issue{\large Reviewer \#2}
@@ -294,7 +310,8 @@ one.
 
 \response{Thank you for addressing this inconsistency. 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
+  all figures and analysis. We changed the sentence in the methods
+  accordingly (line 183). 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
@@ -317,13 +334,13 @@ one.
   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 had in
+  and Andre Longtin and colleges (we guess this is what you had in
   mind).}
 
 \issue{(8) Line 302. "not-small amplitude" is arbitrary and
   vague. Please be clearer and more precise.}
 
-\response{We rephrased to two sentences in lines 323 -- 325.}
+\response{We rephrased to two sentences in lines 325--327.}
 
 \issue{(9) Figures 5C and 6C. For the stimuli with the red RAM
   waveforms, please make it clear which contrast is being represented
@@ -347,11 +364,17 @@ one.
   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 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.\\
+  adds background noise to the system that linearizes the response. In
+  this context, it is crucial to realize that the (linear and
+  nonlinear) transfer of a nonlinear system like a neuron depends on
+  the background noise. A Gaussian noise stimulus acts here both (i)
+  as a signal that evokes a response (linear and nonlinear) and (ii)
+  as an additional background noise linearizing the (linear and
+  nonlinear) response. In the context of our study it implies 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 (line 477 -- 482).}
+  this clear (lines 479--484).}
 
 \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
@@ -378,6 +401,6 @@ one.
   frequency and how these may exploit the weakly nonlinear
   interactions.  However, we agree that the comparative aspect of the
   conclusion could be expanded. We therefore added one more final
-  speculative sentence to the conclusion.}
+  speculative sentence to the conclusion (lines 715--716).}
 
 \end{document}