High-Frequency Local Field Potential Oscillations for Pigeons in Effective Turning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is well written and shares interesting information about the electrophysiological basis of turning behavior in Pigeons. Overall, the quality of writing and presentation is very good with few minor improvements needed.
1. My major concern is about the ethological compatibility of the results. The experiments are done with walking pigeons while their natural behavior is flying for navigation. Authors need to bring out this limitation of their study design in the introduction and discussion sections. If required, they can comment on and may site several studies done with wireless in vivo electrophysiological/optical recordings with Fruit bats.
- Are there any studies done with LFP recording on flying birds/mammals relevant to the results? Please cite and discuss.
2) Some minor corrections:
- Simple summary states same/similar points repeated several times, can be rewritten in a shorter paragraph.
- Line 14 - rephrase "inducing higher high frequency" with "higher-frequency".
- Line 115 - Units of weight need to be corrected.
- Line 139-140 - Replace left and right "brains" with "hemisphere"
- Line 335 - Replace "E" with "(e)".
- Line 478 - Pigeons "did not oscillate" should be rewritten as "did not show oscillations" in the D band.
- Authors may also consider, in the future, to perform the flying T-maze experiments with wireless ephys recording and stimulation set up.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor improvements needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have the following comments and recommendations to the paper:
— Simple Summary before Abstract: Is it a standard segmentation? Many other MDPI journals only have Abstract.
˜˜— End of Abstract: "... different band oscillations may play different roles. ..." It is a bit uncertain (may). If it is a main conclusion of the article, it should be stated with greater certainty, I think.
— Introduction: The state-of-the-art is described comprehensively. However, there is a lack of newest references, please see my comment on References below.
— Lines 101–103: "... oscillations in different bands may represent different information processing or control pathways, which can coordinate and adjust the turning behavior ..." Again, is it a fundamental idea of the paper?
— Line 115: "428 kg ± 25": I don't understand this.
— Lines 153 through 158: Is a such treatment ethical?
— Figure 1 (d): It is difficult to read because it is too small. If enlarged on the screen, it is blurry and unreadable. I think this picture should be enlarged and improved.
— Lines 267–268: Welch method – please insert a citation where it is defined. Hamming window – again, please insert a citation.
— Line 192: Shapiro-Wilk W test: The same, please insert a citation.
— Figure 4: It could be better seen if enlarged to the page width (18.5 cm). The MDPI template enables the usage of the full page width if necessary. The authors didn't use this feature at all!
— Conclusion: It summarizes the impact of varied stimulation frequencies on LFP oscillatory activity, mutual coupling between bands, etc., as achievements of the article. However, for a PRACTICAL usefulness, the last sentence about the animal robots seems more important to me. (And maybe it could be more concretized in the article.)
— References: There are many ones. However, I have found only one from 2023 [32], only one from 2022 [12], and three ones from 2021. Therefore, I think more new references could be added.
Generally, in my opinion, the article can be accepted after minor revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
