Thank you Dr. Marsh for your continuous supervision. I learned valuable lessons from your feedback. I have to improve the way I deliver my thoughts and to speak directly. I learned that being a researcher, I have to look for the truth but being a peer reviewer, I have to share my field expertise in delivering the truth to the readers. It requires unique skills.

With your suggestions, I revised my review.

The abstract matched the content of the article including the aim, methods and results. Title is informative and relevant.
Background provided relevant and current literature reviews. The research question was clearly outlined. For the Methods, process of subject selection was clear. However, from the point of view of a psychiatrist, diagnosis Is essential because different mental health problems can lower cognition. I suggest that diagnosis should be considered as a variable in future studies or follow ups to give more weight to the results of the study. The variables were defined and measured appropriately. The study method was valid and reliable. For the Results, Tables 1-4 were relevant, however, all needs proper labeling. It should indicate what the columns are. The results are practically meaningful. For the Conclusions, It answered the aim of the study. The results were supported by references and results. The limitations were stated clearly as well. The references were relevant recent. The oldest reference was dated 1997, however, it is relevant to the study. Overall, The study design is appropriate for the aim, it added important data and consistent within itself.