Using a new paradigm in which two participants interact through a tablet computer app, authors investigated temporal synchronization of movements in order to keep a virtual ball rotating. To investigate how different sensory modalities support interpersonal coordination, they observed how performance was affected by three types of real-time auditory information (EAF, PAF, CAF) presented in addition to other sensorial information. The authors state that augmented effect-based auditory information facilitate interpersonal coordination. Line 45: change “Bruno H Repp” to Repp

Line 53-69. Authors could also mention some studies on audio-based internal representation of movements, showing that athletes can discriminate between one’s own and other’s movement sounds (Kennel et al. 2014a; 2014b), also on the basis of temporal factors (Murgia et al., 2012).

Line 103 Although the auditory dominance in temporal processing is well-known, I suggest authors to add some citations regarding pace and rhythm specification and discrimination in the auditory modality (e.g., Collier & Logan, 2000; Murgia et al., 2017). Analogously, I would add some citations at the end of line 104 (e.g. Repp & Penel, 2002). Maybe authors can include also some other examples. Statistics seems correct to me. I suggest authors to specify how they calculated the sample size. The results are correctly reported.

Figures: in my opinion it would be easier to use the same labels used in the manuscript also in the figures (i.e., Control, EAF, PAF, CAF), instead of the letters (i.e., a, b, c, d). Given that VF was available in all groups, this could be simply reminded in the figure captions. Lines 317-321 Authors state that 1) regarding error reductions they found EAF and CAF to be better than the control; 2) regarding cross-correlation CAF is the only significant condition compared to the control. So PAF alone is not relevant enough, but PAF combined with EAF is better than EAF alone. Is it correct?

If I have understood correctly, it seems that also PAF is relevant. It is obvious that EAF is better than PAF, but maybe the combination of both is even better, isn’t it? If so, I wonder why in the title you only mention EAF. However it is possible that I have missed something. I suggest you to better explain your interpretation in this regard. Overall, I have found this study very interesting and original. I don’t have any major concern regarding the methods and the statistics. In my opinion, the most relevant issues regard the introduction, which should include some extra literature, and the interpretation of the results, which should be better explained. I recommend a moderate revision.