Review

Peer Review

This is a very relevant paper reflecting on how other brain systems (besides traditionally studied prefrontal cognitive networks) affect self control. I have kept my notes from the entire exercise labeled as "Notes from Publons Exercises" in case the author would like to review.

Below, I have formatted the "Peer Review" suggestions in a "page.paragraph.line" format.

2.1.13 Abstract: -Research Question needs to be framed more clearly in the abstract. I might consider: "How are individual dynamic functional network connectivity differences within the salience network and cognitive control network related to the ability to resist temptation?

-I would consider adding a sentence about the statistical methodologies being used (correlational coefficients) in this section.

4.3.9 Introduction I would consider adding a reference somewhere in this section to a great review of brain networks. You have an interesting figure of the brain networks (figure 3a). Many readers may want to study these regions, especially the salience network and cognitive control network in greater detail. Adding a review reference would be helpful for the reader to know where to go to explore more information about these networks.

5.2.6 Introduction I might consider adding an additional paragraph answering the question: "Are there any real world benefits finding out if the salience network has a role in self-control and, if so, what are they? Why is this important?"

5.3.1 Methods-Patient selection 1.Selection Subjects were 94 current or former university college students. Mean age equals 25.93, Standard Deviation = 3.84; female = 54%.

Does this subject group generalize into the general population? Also, there appears to be both volunteer bias and opportunity bias that need further discussion. Were there any inclusion or exclusion factors? What if a large percentage of these individuals had attention problems? Would that issue confound the results found? More details are needed to understand how focus, mood disorders, and substance misuse/abuse could have confounded these results.

Finally, why were there 94 subjects in this study? What is the percent likelihood that these findings would show a statistically significant difference? You might want to discuss with a good statistician to get great clarity on the strength of these findings.

5.4.1 Methods-Self-Control Task Are there any validity and reliability findings that you could add regarding this test?

Pages 6-9.x.x Methods- fMRI Data Acquisition and Preprocessing; Independent Component Analysis, Independent Component Post-processing, Sliding Window Analysis.

I would suggest having a radiologist review this section assessing validity of these findings from fMRI.

9.1.6 Methods-k-means clustering I might consider adding another reference to the interested reader who may want a "fast" understanding of what exactly k-means clustering measures and why it is important in this study.

Consider taking a look at the following video from YouTube on k-means clustering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b5d3muPQmA&t=181s&ab_channel=StatQuestwithJoshStarmer. It lasts 8 minutes 30 seconds and gives the reader a rapid understanding of k-means clustering and how it is used in this study.

The study uses several different types of statistics. You might consider ways to keep the reader engaged in "quickly" learning about these methods via visual presentations.

9.3.1 Results-Dynamic Salience Network States The "five states" of the salience network need more discussion. Some of the information is discussed in the Methods Section: Cognitive Control Network and Salience Network Dynamic States (9.1.1). I would think of a way to discuss how a) the salience network that is composed of b) different neuroanatomic regions including the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, bilateral insular cortex, and orbital frontal cortex demonstrate different connectivity patterns during performed activities that can be classified into c)five different dynamic "states" using k-means clustering. I would think of adding a graphic to help explain.

21-26.x.x Results-Graphic Figures All of these graphics would benefit from having titles at the top and brief explanations below. Make sure that the figures are numbered.

23-24.x.x Results-Graphic Figures The heat maps are difficult to understand. A suggestion would be to add a paragraph in the results section of the paper explaining what a heat map measures and why this is important in this study. Also, what is the difference between figures 3b and 4a/4b?

10.2.1 Results-Dynamic Cognitive Control Network States I would elaborate on the "five states) of Cognitive Control in a similar fashion to the above suggestions made for Salience Network.

13.3.2 Discussion-Limitations I would suggest adding more information about the number needed to have a highly powered study. In addition, consider addressing how generalizable are these findings given that only college affiliated students were utilized.

13.4.1 Conclusions Conclusions You might consider creating a greater "sense of urgency" about your new findings. Rather than say “Studying salience network dynamics might deliver valuable insight into the origin of individual differences in self-control ability,” say, “The significance of the salience network findings in this small study needs further validation from a larger study. If that study demonstrates statistically significant findings, subsequent research needs to discover what novel treatments could be used to improve self-control."

The findings are fascinating but need further validation. If these finding are true, then what could be done in the real world ( andnot just those suffering from mental illness-depression, anxiety, substance abuse) to help improve self-control, particularly in a media driven hyper-polarizing environment. (Find a scientifically poised way of saying "Hurry Up! Let's get the necessary highly powered study completed so we can make the world a better place")

Notes from Publons Exercises (please note that there could be typos)

Does the main article match the abstract? Yes Is the aim/research question clear? I would change the question to the following; How are individual differences within the salience network and cognitive control network related to the ability to resist temptation? Is the methodology outlined? No-it is not in the abstract The results and conclusions aligned with the aim? The results need to be more clearly specified. Once the research question is more clarified, the aim should follow more accurately. Does the title convey the main idea? The title needs more clarification in terms of comparing/contrasting salience network versus cognitive control network and temptation.

References Are the references relevant? The references appear relevant Other references current? The article was written in 2017. References are cited up to 2016. Are there any other reason references? Are the references cited correctly? Yes Are any major references missing? Are there any classic individuals who have studied neuro networks that need to be mentioned? e.g. Yeo

Background With the recent relevant studies?-Yes You know of any other studies?-No Could a review replace several references-not that I know of

Definitions of specialized terms-that was done Acronyms written full-that was done

Statement of population-there is not much written about the specific population Who is the research relevant to? It appears to be the whole population but that is not specified well within the paper.

Importance What value does the paper add? It incorporates interesting knowledge about the Salience Network and how it integrates impulsive/visceral inputs and cognitive inputs? Why are we interested? If the salience network is not working well, we may have opportunities to help it work better. Other claims justified? The claims are justified

What new knowledge will begin? Is the research problem defined-partially Will it advance our understanding-yes Does it resolve confusion-partially; it does not talk about the salience network connectivity to other regions of the brain

What practical benefits will it provide? Is it providing a solution?-No Does it create interventions?-No Does the study have real-world benefits?-Possibly

Research Goals What is the purpose of the paper? To understand if the science network plays a part in controlling impulses. (Does the research question change??) By the objectives clearly stated in the paper? This needs further work focusing on the salience network

Other important questions Is there a logical progression? Yes they did a fairly good job. They could distinguish novel techniques and methodology and novel understanding about science network. Is the gap in knowledge genuine?-Yes Is the knowledge important?-Yes Is the hypothesis appropriate-I did not see an hypothesis Is the subject group suitable? I think that it is suitable but it would only pertain to college students. Is the structure of the writing optimal? More clarity is needed with regards to the novelty of the science network and the methodology of using dynamic resting functional connectivity.

Methodology

1.Selection Subjects were current or former university college students. Mean age equals 25.93, Standard Deviation = 3.84; female = 54%.

Does this subject group generalize into the general population? Also, there appears to be both volunteer bias and opportunity bias that need further discussion. Were there any inclusion or exclusion factors? What if a large percentage of these individuals had attention problems? Would that issue confound the results found? More details are needed to understand how focus, mood disorders, and substance misuse/abuse could have confounded these results.

1. Validity

A. Self-Control Task Eye gaze distance is the dependent variable that measures the level of distraction. What other studies have used Self-control Task? Does this test have any validity and reliability markers?

B. fMRI data acquisition and preprocessing; Independent Component Analysis, Independent Component Post-processing, Sliding Window Analysis.

Given this reviewer’s lack of expertise in functional neuroradiology, I would highly recommend that a neuroradiologist reviews this part of the paper to clarify the integrity of the processes in overall quality/validity of the pictures.

Statistically, more information is needed about Independent Component Analysis, Independent Component Post-processing, and Sliding Window Analysis. Possibly, a supplemental review to understand these terminologies would be helpful. Also, “IC” needs to be clarified an acronym.

Figures 3a and 3b need titles and explanations. More clarity is needed to understand these interesting graphics such that the reader can better understand what is trying to be communicated.

Sliding Window Analysis needs further clarification. What exactly is a “sliding window”? How does this relate to the different functional states for the salience network and cognitive control network? Possibly, this could go into a supplemental report. More clarity is needed.

C. Cognitive Control Network and Salience Network Dynamic States Frequency and Dwell time appear to be the dependent variables reviewed while one is looking at erotic temptations. Have any other studies use these dependent variables? How valid are these variables in terms of understanding distractibility during erotic temptation?

1. Reliability Did any of the 94 subjects have another Self-Control Task and fMRI conducted again to establish reliability? Was there any additional groups being studied after the initial 94 subjects that he not mentioned in this report to establish reliability?

Data and Results

1. Need for Data The research question in this observational study is how does salience network dynamic functional network connectivity (fDNC) relate to one’s ability to resist temptation? The study needs to measure fDNC and level of resisting temptation (defined by eye gaze distance when looking at erotic pictures). The independent variable and dependent variable are both numeric. The study used correlation data between independent variable and dependent variable, which did appear to be appropriate.

That said, however, further inquiry is needed to understand the “five states” in the science network and the “five states in the Cognitive Control Network. It is unclear how these “five states” were derived. Further clarification is needed in the report to better understand them.

1. Presenting Data and Figures

The majority graphs, fMRI Network Regions, and heat maps need introductions and explanations under each table. Furthermore, the written report mentions specific figures (e.g., figures 6a and 6b) but none of the graphic figures are labeled in such a manner. Finally, “frequency” of salience states” and “dwell time” of salience states needs further clarification. The same suggestions would go for “frequency” of cognitive states and “dwell times” of cognitive states.

One final suggestion, the fMRI pictures of the salience network and cognitive network are very helpful. I would suggest labeling different neuroanatomic regions of these areas. If different states relate to the connectivity between these intra network regions, then that definition needs to be clearly spelled out in the report.

1. Data Discussion The paper did show post hoc a correlational analysis demonstrating that state 4 salience network functioning was negatively associated with gaze-control, meaning that those individuals in state for science network were less likely to be tempted (r = -0.26; p = 0.012) I would suggest adding the standard deviation. There was also another correlation coefficient that was adjusted for age, gender, and fluid intelligence (r = -0.276, p=.008). Again, I would add the standard deviation. I would also add suggestions to look at specific graphic elements that show this correlation.

In the discussion session, there is mention that the salience network may influence the default mode network. It would be helpful for the author to define what the primary functions of the default mode network are such that the reader can further appreciate how the salience network attempts to control impulsive thoughts.

Discussions Section

1. Presentation

I would suggest taking the sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the discussion section and make it the first sentence; “the current results demonstrate for the first time that salience network dynamic coupling tendencies may contribute to individual differences in the ability to resist temptation. Then, I would contrast that to the traditional findings of the cognitive control network not demonstrating significant findings to resist temptation in this study.

In addition, the adjusted correlational coefficient, r =-0.274, needs further clarification. This number means that the salience network has a small to moderate effect. Why is this number not larger? What other factors might be leading to increased temptation?

1. Importance If this is the first study where the salience network has been found to demonstrate decreased risk temptation, I would emphasize that point, as mentioned above.

The authors might want to add further creativity and consider what treatment options would be available to help support the salience network (medications, supplements, magnetic stimulation, etc.).

1. Limitations I might also want to mention some of the limitations early as well. Most important, I might want to add information about the sample size need to be higher to validate these findings. It was a wise idea to add Bonferroni correction into this section and make note that the statistical significance did not use this correction.

2. Other explanations

The paper assumes that the state 4 salience network led to less temptation. Would it be worthwhile asking the question did erotic pictures lead to increased state four science network activity? That question might also make one ponder if there were other areas of the brain affecting the salience network (e.g., reward centers affecting the salience network.

1. Conclusions I made at a greater sense of urgency in the conclusions. Rather than say “Studying salience network dynamics might deliver valuable insight into the origin of individual differences in self-control ability,” say, “The significance of the salience network findings in this small study need further validation from a larger study to further validate these crucial early findings.” This study also demands further information regarding how novel treatments could address self-control.