Synthesis
respiratory interoceptive attention, interoceptive sensations, ’
MINOR, CORTEX
Reviewing Editor: Erica Glasper, The Ohio State UniversityDecisions are customarily a result of the Reviewing Editor and the peer reviewers coming together and discussing their recommendations until a consensus is reached. When revisions are invited, a fact-based synthesis statement explaining their decision and outlining what is needed to prepare a revision will be listed below. The following reviewer(s) agreed to reveal their identity: NONE. Note: If this manuscript was transferred from JNeurosci and a decision was made to accept the manuscript without peer review, a brief statement to this effect will instead be what is listed below.Overview: The authors of this manuscript describe a new fMRI task that utilizes respiratory interoceptive attention, with the goal of using it to probe the neural basis of interoception in studies that could follow. The authors selected a small sample of health individuals from a larger clinical trial using a mindfulness intervention that focused on body awareness. These individuals reported higher levels of stress during this task. The authors report that, despite their initial predictions, participants demonstrated widespread deactivations, rather than activations, of the insular cortex and other brain regions. The task is sound and the study, overall, is meritorious. There are a few minor concerns, that require further attention that are described, in detail, below. When needed, exact reviewer comments can be found in quotations.Overall CommentsThe authors are encouraged to reduce, or remove, the many leading statements within the manuscript. Please see the following as examples and consider phrasing that mentions an association between 2 variables:1. Abstract - ‘attention towards...may lead to a low activity, high connectivity state’2. Discussion - ‘Interoception led to increased connectivity in the frontoparietal dorsal attention network’Remaining ConcernsStatistics1. It is unclear why the authors used a global MAIA score instead of conducting analyses on the validates subscales. If a multiple comparison issue is of concern, this analysis could be included in the supplemental material to highlight “whether the observed brain-behavior relationships could be further refined”.2. 22 participants in a small N size, and not a ‘relatively small’ N like the author’s state. This should be explicitly emphasized in the revised manuscript and the authors should state that replication is needed given this small N.Discussion1. It is suggested that the authors reconsider the “notion of MAIA scores simply as a measure of ‘interoceptive sensibility’ in the discussion”. The authors should focus on the most relevant subscale processes.2. It is suggested that the authors reduce, or narrow, the respiratory interoceptive network inferences. The full extent to which these findings may apply to other interoceptive sensations was not studied.