Sex Differences in Functional Connectivity Patterns During Mental Rotation Task: An Event-Related EEG Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsStudy described a mental rotation (MR) study displaying gender differences. The results showed that Males had faster reaction times, typical of MR studies, they had weaker Event Related Potential (ERP) in the fronto-parietal region of the brain suggesting less effort required to solve task, and greater Functional connectivity (FC) suggesting greater internal regulation of the brain function associated with the task.
The paper is clearly written and conclusions justified by the results. The results confirm existing data in the literature but also further the understanding of activity within the brain associated with MR tasks.
I have a few comments that the authors should address in a revision:
The procedure seems unusual in how it measures MR. In typical MR studies an object is presented, followed by a set of images, one of which is a rotated version of the original object. In the current study the participants have to identify what the object is from a selection of rotated elements that they have to put together. Successful MR appears to be based on whether the participants can correctly name the object. I am still not sure what the example image in Fig 1 of the paper is and so I would fail the mental rotation task simply because I can’t name the full non-rotated object. I appreciate that the authors address in the materials section the problem with different angle of rotation but I think this way of recording success in MR task should be explained in the introduction and maybe a less ambiguous object could be used in Figure 1.
Another thing I am unsure about is the how a response is defined as successful separate from being defined as correct. In line 298 the authors say “both groups completed the mental rotation (MR) task successfully and correctly” , making it sound like you could complete a task successfully but incorrectly. However, in the data analysis section on line 197 the authors state that solution has 2 levels “Solution (with different kinds of answers): unsuccessful MR (with incorrect answers) vs. successful MR (with correct answers)”. This suggests successful answers are defined by whether they are correct or not. The difference between successful and correct responses should be more clearly explained.
More minor comments are as follows:
The link between the end of line 41 to the beginning of the next paragraph on line 42 does not seem to follow
“Apart from behavioral studies, a number of studies have noted sex differences in MR from various perspectives, as follows.” Line 41
“Sex-specific activation in cortical regions has also well established” Line 42
In addition Line 42 should be “ has also been well established”
Line 215 “Current study mainly focused on the differences groups, so that, it only reported the significant differences regarding groups.” – Where there any significant interactions?
Line 260-262 does not make sense “Specifically, it revealed significantly larger mean amplitude of female than of male, when they during successful MR processing in the fronto-central areas”
I think “when they” needs to be removed
The figure captions for Figure 2 b and c are the wrong way round
Author Response
I sincerely appreciate the reviewer's insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which are instrumental in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. Below are my point-by-point responses to each comment:
Comment1：The procedure seems unusual in how it measures MR. In typical MR studies an object is presented, followed by a set of images, one of which is a rotated version of the original object. In the current study the participants have to identify what the object is from a selection of rotated elements that they have to put together. Successful MR appears to be based on whether the participants can correctly name the object. I am still not sure what the example image in Fig 1 of the paper is and so I would fail the mental rotation task simply because I can’t name the full non-rotated object. I appreciate that the authors address in the materials section the problem with different angle of rotation but I think this way of recording success in MR task should be explained in the introduction and maybe a less ambiguous object could be used in Figure 1.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I clarified the task description in the introduction and replaced the object in Figure 1 with a more recognizable one to avoid ambiguity.
Comment2：Another thing I am unsure about is the how a response is defined as successful separate from being defined as correct. In line 298 the authors say “both groups completed the mental rotation (MR) task successfully and correctly” , making it sound like you could complete a task successfully but incorrectly. However, in the data analysis section on line 197 the authors state that solution has 2 levels “Solution (with different kinds of answers): unsuccessful MR (with incorrect answers) vs. successful MR (with correct answers)”. This suggests successful answers are defined by whether they are correct or not. The difference between successful and correct responses should be more clearly explained.
Response 2: I agree with this comment. I revised the text to explicitly state that "successful" and "correct" are synonymous in the context of MR task performance, aligning with the data analysis section.
Comment3: The link between the end of line 41 to the beginning of the next paragraph on line 42 does not seem to follow
“Apart from behavioral studies, a number of studies have noted sex differences in MR from various perspectives, as follows.” Line 41
“Sex-specific activation in cortical regions has also well established” Line 42
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out.I rephrased the transition between paragraphs to improve coherence.
Comment4: In addition Line 42 should be “ has also been well established”
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out.I added "been" to correct the sentence to "has also been well established."
Comment5: Line 215 “Current study mainly focused on the differences groups, so that, it only reported the significant differences regarding groups.” – Where there any significant interactions?
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out.I have added a note that while there were significant interactions, they were not relevant to the current research focus and thus not reported.
Comment6: Line 260-262 does not make sense “Specifically, it revealed significantly larger mean amplitude of female than of male, when they during successful MR processing in the fronto-central areas”
I think “when they” needs to be removed
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. I removed "when they" to make the sentence coherent.
Comment7: The figure captions for Figure 2 b and c are the wrong way round
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out.We swap the captions for figures 2b and 2c.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe ms describes an EEG study of sex differences in mental rotation performance. Consistent with prior studies, men had advantages on the behavioral task and, based on the EEG, processed and rotated the images with less engagement of cognitive control networks than females. The study will make a useful contribution to the literature, following some revision.
Abstract: I’d change impoverished to low scoring.
- 1, L 32: change hot discussion topics to debated topics.
L 37; in this paragraph add effect sizes (d) so readers understand the magnitude of the sex differences.
- 2, L 53. Visuospatial operations is not clear. I think you mean top-down engagement of problem-solving resources, including visuospatial working memory. Relatedly, a few sentences on the functions of the FPN would be helpful for readers unfamiliar with this literature.
Next paragraph, readers will need a few sentences on the EEG and the interpretation of the band activities. Some of this is starting on L 72, but this should go before describing the sex difference, that is, first describe beta and theta bands generally, then the sex differences, and then the meaning of these differences.
L 86. Females engage more frontal resources and males engage more parietal resources.
- 3, L 103. Native Chinese speakers (Mandrin?).
- 7, L 258. By the exploration of the results is unclear. Does this mean that multiple exploratory analyses were conducted? If so, they need to be explained.
- 9, L 337; internal efforts should be changed to greater engagement of prefrontal cognitive control networks.
- 10, L 357; regulatory effects is not clear.
Overall, it looks like the MR task is more automatic in males than females, but more of a learned skill in females.
Author Response
I sincerely appreciate the reviewer's insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which are instrumental in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. Below are my point-by-point responses to each comment:
Comment1: Abstract: I’d change impoverished to low scoring.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out.I changed "impoverished" to "low-scoring."
Comment2: L 32: change hot discussion topics to debated topics.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out.I replaced "hot discussion topics" with "debated topics."
Comment3: L 37; in this paragraph add effect sizes (d) so readers understand the magnitude of the sex differences.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out.I am sorry for that I did not add Cohen's d values for sex differences in the introduction sections, because I think it would need a meta-analysis if we want the specific results of sex differences of many findings. If there is a chance, I would do more researches about the meta-analysis.
Comment4: L 53. Visuospatial operations is not clear. I think you mean top-down engagement of problem-solving resources, including visuospatial working memory. Relatedly, a few sentences on the functions of the FPN would be helpful for readers unfamiliar with this literature.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out.I expanded on the functions of the FPN and revised “visuospatial operations” to “visuospatial programming”.
Comment5: Next paragraph, readers will need a few sentences on the EEG and the interpretation of the band activities. Some of this is starting on L 72, but this should go before describing the sex difference, that is, first describe beta and theta bands generally, then the sex differences, and then the meaning of these differences.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out.I reorganized the text to first describe EEG bands, then sex differences, and their interpretation.
Comment6: L 86. Females engage more frontal resources and males engage more parietal resources.
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. I clarified the resource engagement pattern of both sexes between frontal and parietal regions.
Comment7: L 103. Native Chinese speakers (Mandrin?).
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. I specified "Mandarin" for native Chinese speakers.
Comment8: L 258. By the exploration of the results is unclear. Does this mean that multiple exploratory analyses were conducted? If so, they need to be explained.
Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out.I did not conduct the exploratory analyses. It was analyzed based on my hypothesis.
Comment9: L 337; internal efforts should be changed to greater engagement of prefrontal cognitive control networks.
Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out.I replaced "internal efforts" with "greater engagement of prefrontal cognitive control networks."
Comment10: L 357; regulatory effects is not clear.
Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out.II rephrased to clarify regulatory outcomes .
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has addressed my concerns and am happy to recommend accepting the paper in its current form
