Gender-Specific Interactions in a Visual Object Recognition Task in Persons with Opioid Use Disorder
, Sarah Kamhout 1, Kyle B. Bills 1,2, Daniel Adams 3, Donovan E. Fleming 1, Bruce L. Brown 1 and Scott C. Steffensen 1,2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is original and very relevant for the field. The authors have evaluated the electroencephalographic responses of male and female participants with opioid use disorder during a simple visual object recognition. The results of this study indicate that, there are visual attention, cognitive processing, and physiological measure differences in men and women who struggle with maintaining recovery from substance abuse and opiate addiction. The object recognition task used in the current EEG study is sensitive to those differences, and therefore may be helpful in better understanding the biological underpinnings of opiate addiction and the disinhibitory behaviors associated with it.
Next studies on larger cohort of people from same categories would be very useful.
The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. The results of the study offer further evidence that continued research in the area of DA neurotransmission and search for biomarkers in the visual system for opiate addiction and relapse as measured by EEG is warranted to illuminate reasons for sex-related differences in OUD prevalence and mortality rates.
The references are appropriate, including some relevant authors experience in the field.
I recommend some minor corrections.
1. Figures 2 and 3 should be bigger, to be easier leasible.
2. Tables should be written at single spaces
3. References should be written according to Instructions for authors. Too many ref. are mentioning just first author et al. Usually all the authors should be mentioned
Author Response
Reviewer #1, Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments. We have responded to each of your recommendations below:
1. Figures 2 and 3 should be bigger, to be easier leasible.
Response: In order to enlarge the figures, we would have to split them into separate figures, making twice the number of figures. We feel that the figures as they are, have high enough resolution (8x screen) for readers to be able to zoom in as needed.
2. Tables should be written at single spaces
Response: In the revised manuscript, we will adjust the tables to single spacing.
3. References should be written according to Instructions for authors. Too many ref. are mentioning just first author et al. Usually all the authors should be mentioned
Response: We apologize for this error. We inadvertently lost MDPI styling when converting between file formats. We will rectify this in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Gender-specific interactions in a visual object recognition task in persons with opioid use disorder
This article is a unique attempt by authors to reveal gender biasedness in visual object recognition in persons with opioid use disorder. The study was designed to understand the cognitive neuroscience of opioid use disorder (OUD) using male and female participants' electroencephalographic (EEG) responses by a simple visual object recognition Go/No-Go task. The study results provide evidence of important gender by OUD differences in cognitive processing and reflection of performance. I found the study is well designed and executed meticulously. The present manuscript is well-written, and the findings are interesting for readers. My only concern is the small sample size used in the study to reach such a vital inference, and this must be addressed with caution.
Author Response
Reviewer 2, thank you so much for your helpful comments. We appreciate your efforts and time to help us improve this study.
Recommendation #1: My only concern is the small sample size used in the study to reach such a vital inference, and this must be addressed with caution.
Response: We recognize that the sample size is small for each group, as we split by sex and opiate-use status. We recognize the need for more research in this area, and hope to do a follow-up study with a larger sample. We address this limitation as well as potential insights for future studies in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript.
