A Multiple-Choice Maze-like Spatial Navigation Task for Humans Implemented in a Real-Space, Multipurpose Circular Arena

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I find this manuscript very interesting and important. Could you provide animation or video of the tests you designed? This could be done as a supplementary file.

Having a small sample size that is diverse by many factors (age, sex, exercise level) is a limitation rather than the strength of the study. This must be addressed in limitations. Also, it would be useful to provide an indication of the significance that corresponds to this sample size. Significance level should be supported with effect size analysis and maybe by the G*power calculation.

Author Response

Thanks for your revision. Our responses are uploaded.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

My comments are in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for your revision. Our responses are uploaded.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed my suggestions. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the authors for their responses to my questions and incorporating some of the suggestions. To finalize my review, I would like the authors to note the following comments.

1- usually responses to comments from reviewers is done in a comment-to-comment basis, and by pointing out where the manuscript has been edited to incorporate the comment(s).

2- my question about affordability was related more towards financial feasibility and knowledge availability. Developing, installation and set-up of a system like the one described here demand funding and proper (knowledge) expertise. This is something that not all research and clinical groups have easy access to (e.g. groups outside Europe and North America)

3- I suggest the authors to consider working generally on the basis of gender, and not of sex.

4- the manuscript still mentions 3 words (subjects, volunteers, participants) and sometimes is difficult to tell whether there is any difference among them

4- my comment about egocentric and allocentric modes was intended to clarify, in this study, how the mechanisms and dynamics of the tasks change according to the mode, and not to provide a definition of the concept

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. The changes are in red font in the text and in these responses.

#2- question about affordability = We appreciate the reviewer’s comment on the affordability of the technique, since this was one of our own concerns while beginning the project.

The funding of this structure was reduced as much as possible without compromising its stability or the needs of the experiments. This is why we built the structure using simple and inexpensive building materials (aluminum tubes and rails) and electronics (Raspberry Pis and led screens/laser pointers).

The software part of the project (consisting of code that we will happily share should any group be interested), while extensive, is pretty basic. What’s more, operating the system does not require writing a single line of code, it is done either by clicking buttons or pressing a key on the keyboard.

We have to disagree on the notion that research and clinical groups outside of North America and Europe lack the expertise of a group naïve to the field.

#3- gender, not sex = We'll consider seriously the reviewer's suggestion for future studies.

#4- subjects, volunteers, participants... The word "volunteer" has now been removed from the manuscript, and we have included the word "participant" when appropriate.

#5- egocentric and allocentric modes = We included a sentence clarifying this aspect.