This is a short note describing a data set collected by the authors. The data has been clearly described and methods referenced.

1. Is the rationale for collecting and analyzing the data well defined? The data described by this manuscript was collected to determine which tasks give reliable results for single subjects. This information was needed for scanning performed for pre-surgical planning. The authors clearly state the rationale for the cohort characteristics as well as the ultimate use of the data.

2. Is it clear how data was collected, curated, and how the data can be accessed if it is not deposited in our repository? Yes, the data acquisition parameters have been clearly recorded. In addition there are links to code used in the processing and references to the resulting papers.

3. Are the data sound and well controlled? These are healthy controls so there are no alternate controls and metadata such as gender and age range for the group is reported.

General Comments:

The methods are appropriate for the goal of the study, namely to image healthy subjects in a given narrow age range using specific fMRI tasks to determine whether the tasks are reliable enough for use on single subject data. This is appropriate for the application (pre-surgical planning) of these data.

The authors have followed best-practice in reporting standards and have made available processing software and the data.

Minor Essential Revisions:

1. Are the diffusion gradient directions that were used calculated using the of the Jones reference? Are they the ones from that paper? Or is the Jones paper used as a general reference to the choosing of gradient direction sets.

2. The data were reported to be anonymized however, it would be helpful for the potential user to know to what level this was done or which metadata remain so the user can know if the data will be appropriate for reuse or adding to an existing cohort.

3. Were there any input parameters used in the defacing algorithm that could be reported?

4. In “(3) overt verb generation task. 88 volumes with sparse sampling” there is a spurious period after the work “task”.

5. In the sentence containing the phrase “random unique identifier using an in house software” there should be a comma between random and unique and “in house” should be hyphenated.

Level of interest: An article of importance in its field

Quality of written English: Acceptable

Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.

Declaration of competing interests: I have no competing interests.