The Intricate Web of Asymmetric Processing of Social Stimuli in Humans

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is of considerable interest and summarizes a variety of aspects of human asymmetry. I would like to especially note the good and easy-to-read style of presentation of the material. I found one typo: line 333 says "hearth", but most likely meant "heart". I would also like to note a significant number of analyzed sources. Since the author considers dichotic listening in detail, I would also suggest reviewing and citing works where the lead-lag paradigm was used. This makes it possible to evaluate the functional interhemispheric asymmetry, which is not stable and can be manipulated (for example, see the article https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/13/6/937 )

Author Response

Point 1:

I found one typo: line 333 says "hearth", but most likely meant "heart". I would also like to note a significant number of analyzed sources.

Point 2:

Since the author considers dichotic listening in detail, I would also suggest reviewing and citing works where the lead-lag paradigm was used. This makes it possible to evaluate the functional interhemispheric asymmetry, which is not stable and can be manipulated (for example, see the article https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/13/6/937 )

Reponses 1 and 2:

We thank the Reviewer for her/his useful comments. As requested, we have removed the typo (p. 8) and mentioned the lead-lag paradigm in dichotic listening (p. 3). We hope that the Reviewer is satisfied with our revision, but we are available to make further changes if required.

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of „The intricate web of asymmetric processing of social stimuli in Humans“

In their manuscript entitled „The intricate web of asymmetric processing of social stimuli in Humans“ Marzoli and co-workers present a comprehensive review article on hemispheric asymmetries in social processing in humans. The Article is very much in line with the thematic scope of the journal. It has high novelty and the authors know the relevant literature well. It present novel and interesting insights. As such, I can clearly see it published in Symmetry, but have some suggestions for minor revisions the authors may consider (see below).

Comments:

General:

There are no figures in this review article, maybe the authors could discuss adding some visual content to enhance their message? For example, adding some pictures of the chimeric faces that are discussed could be interesting for the reader.

General:

I was not sure whether the order of sections the authors choose was optimal to bring their message across. The start with language, but language surely is a special case in the discussion of social laterality, as it is mostly left-lateralized in contrast to most other forms of laterality discussed in the paper. I thought that the message would be stronger if the authors put section 5 (social laterality) where section 2 is and discuss this first as it is the most central section.

General:

The authors cite the work of Vallortigara and comparative research on social laterality and I thought it would be interesting if the authors could include a short section at the end to discuss their findings on social laterality in humans in comparison to research findings in animals.

Statement:

“In humans, the population-level preference for the use of the right hand (around 90% of individuals being right-handed; e.g., [1]) represents the clearest example of behavioral lateralization.”

The authors use this reference from 1993 but it is very dated and the instrument seldom used:

1. Coren, S. The Lateral Preference Inventory for Measurement of Handedness, Footedness, Eyedness, and Earedness: Norms for Young Adults. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 1993, 31, 1–3, doi:10.3758/BF03334122.

I would suggest using the largest and most recent meta-analysis on human handedness as a more recent reference:

Papadatou-Pastou M, Ntolka E, Schmitz J, Martin M, Munafò MR, Ocklenburg S, Paracchini S. Human handedness: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2020 Jun;146(6):481-524

Author Response

We thank the Reviewer for her/his useful comments, and we hope that she/he is satisfied with our revision. In any case, we are available to make further changes if required.

Point 1:

There are no figures in this review article, maybe the authors could discuss adding some visual content to enhance their message? For example, adding some pictures of the chimeric faces that are discussed could be interesting for the reader.

Response 1:

As suggested by the Reviewer, we have included one picture in each of the Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 in order to exemplify the main paradigms and findings discussed in the manuscript.

Point 2:

I was not sure whether the order of sections the authors choose was optimal to bring their message across. The start with language, but language surely is a special case in the discussion of social laterality, as it is mostly left-lateralized in contrast to most other forms of laterality discussed in the paper. I thought that the message would be stronger if the authors put section 5 (social laterality) where section 2 is and discuss this first as it is the most central section.

Response 2:

We agree with the Reviewer that Section 5 is central to our argumentations, but we chose to start from auditory asymmetries both to follow a chronological order in terms of literature and because starting form perceptual asymmetries allowed us to frame the topic of social laterality with reference to such asymmetries. Moreover, we believe that Section 5 is in a pivotal position because it allows us to introduce our following proposals and discussions. We hope that the Reviewer accepts our explanation, but - as already stated - we can make further changes if necessary.

Point 3:

The authors cite the work of Vallortigara and comparative research on social laterality and I thought it would be interesting if the authors could include a short section at the end to discuss their findings on social laterality in humans in comparison to research findings in animals.

Response 3:

We thank the Reviewer for this suggestion, and we have revised the manuscript accordingly (p. 15).

Point 4:

Statement:

“In humans, the population-level preference for the use of the right hand (around 90% of individuals being right-handed; e.g., [1]) represents the clearest example of behavioral lateralization.”

The authors use this reference from 1993 but it is very dated and the instrument seldom used:

1. Coren, S. The Lateral Preference Inventory for Measurement of Handedness, Footedness, Eyedness, and Earedness: Norms for Young Adults. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 1993, 31, 1–3, doi:10.3758/BF03334122.

I would suggest using the largest and most recent meta-analysis on human handedness as a more recent reference:

Papadatou-Pastou M, Ntolka E, Schmitz J, Martin M, Munafò MR, Ocklenburg S, Paracchini S. Human handedness: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2020 Jun;146(6):481-524

We thank the Reviewer for noticing this point, and we have included the suggested reference in the revised manuscript (p. 1).