Elsevier Editorial System(tm) for Hearing Research Manuscript Draft ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

*Cover Letter PROF. DR. DEBENER, IPSY, FAK. V, CARL VON OSSIETZKY UNIVERSITÄT OLDENBURG · 26111 OLDENBURG Barbara Canlon Editor-in-Chief Hearing Research Barbara.Canlon@ki.se Journal article re-submission Dear Dr. Canlon, Please find attached the revised version of our original manuscript HEARES-D- 11-00139, entitled “Semi-automatic attenuation of cochlear implant artifacts for the evaluation of late auditory evoked potentials” which we would like to submit for consideration for publication in Hearing Research. We would like to thank you for providing us with reviews of three experts in the field. We have revised the paper along the lines suggested by the reviewers and believe that the revision further improved the quality of the manuscript. Please find below a detailed point-by-point reply to the reviewers comments, including the implied additional analyses. For the reviewers’ and your convenience we have copied and numbered the original comments into the reply (in italics), along with our response. We have carefully considered all suggestions and revised the manuscript accordingly. All revisions are marked in red font in the revised version of the manuscript. We are looking forward to your editorial decision. Sincerely, Stefan Debener, PhD AG Neuropsychologie Prof. Dr. Stefan Debener TELEFONDURCHWAHL (0441) 7 98 – 4271 FAX (0441) 7 98 – 5522 EMAIL stefan.debener@uni-oldenburg.de OLDENBURG, DEN 24.10.2011 POSTANSCHRIFT D-26111 Oldenburg PAKETANSCHRIFT Ammerländer Heerstraße 114 - 118 D-26129 Oldenburg STANDORT Carl-von-Ossietzky –Str. 9 – 11 W4-0-044
*Response to Reviewers Dear Dr. Canlon, Thank you very much for providing us with feedback to our original submission HEARES-D- 11-00139 entitled "Automatic attenuation of cochlear implant artifacts for the evaluation of late auditory evoked potentials". Please find below a point-by-point reply to the reviewers comments. For your convenience we have copied and numbered the original comments into the reply (in italics), along with our response. We have carefully considered all suggestions and revised the manuscript accordingly. All revisions are marked in red font in the revised version of the manuscript. Reviewer #1: 1) My only major concern relates to the use of the word 'automatic' in the title and throughout the text. From the authors description of the methods the 3 parameters (Thr_rv, Thr_deriv and Thr_corr) had to be manually adjusted to get adequate artifact attenuation for each of the two datasets collected. This need for manual adjustment of parameters would lead me to refer to the method as semi-automatic and not automatic. This is an important point given that this algorithm only relates to the automatic selection of ICA components (not the ICA or EEG analysis). If three parameters need to be adjusted to correctly select the independent components that represent the artifact, then within this time frame a user could just as easily visually select the three most likely independent components. This point is not mentioned in the Discussion. Reply: The described method indeed relies on user input at some point and we agree that the title is therefore misleading. We changed the title to “Semi-automatic attenuation of cochlear implant artifacts for the evaluation of late auditory evoked potentials”. We also changed the occurrences of “automatic” to “semi-automatic” in throughout the text. The reviewer also points out that “within this time frame the user could just as easily visually select the three most likely independent components”. We would like to highlight that the parameters need to be adjusted just once for each study set, which includes multiple datasets. We have now clarified in the manuscript that CIAC was developed to find ICs that represent CI artifacts across CI users, as long as they were stimulated with the same auditory stimuli. Thus the thresholds are set for a study set and not for each single dataset. Furthermore, we disagree that the time needed to adjust parameters would be comparable to that required to visually inspect ICs and select the components representing the CI artifact. For instance, in the case of the first study (ESS) a total of 1080 ICs (18 datasets x 60 ICs) would need to be inspected. We therefore think that our tool brings advantages since it makes the selection procedure quicker and more objective. 2) Remove apostrophe from "expert'-choices". On the 2nd paragraph change algorithms' to algorithm's. Reply: Revised. 3a) 3rd paragraph 'In a further study.. ' Does this refer to the 2nd data set mentioned in the 2nd paragraph. If so, then say 'In the second study'. Reply: Revised. 1
Page 1: Elsevier Editorial System(tm) for H
Page 5 and 6: 8) Lines 137-138. Include a figure
Page 7 and 8: confident that the same thresholds
Page 9 and 10: eason to require a window of intere
Page 11 and 12: location information pointing consi
Page 13 and 14: As requested we show in the next fi
Page 15 and 16: 2011, Neuroimage, for an unfair com
Page 17 and 18: *Highlights Highlights New algorit
Page 19 and 20: 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
Page 21 and 22: 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
Page 23 and 24: 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144
Page 25 and 26: 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197
Page 27 and 28: 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
Page 29 and 30: 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302
Page 31 and 32: 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356
Page 33 and 34: 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410
Page 35 and 36: 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466
Page 37 and 38: 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519
Page 39 and 40: Figure(s) Click here to download hi
Page 41 and 42: Figure(s) Click here to download hi
Page 43: Table(s) Table 1. Cochlear implant

Elsevier Editorial System(tm) for Hearing Research Manuscript Draft ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?