Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Based on reviewer feedback, Das and Menon have made several modifications to their manuscript, including a revised Introduction with a reframed motivation (now more oriented around the role of tripartite network in memory operations), new control analyses (as requested by Reviewers, including an updated and more appropriate baseline period and a control region, the IFG), an assessment of narrowband phase synchronization (as requested), as well as updates for clarity throughout the Methods section.
While I believe the authors have been responsive to reviewer feedback, and these modifications do enhance the manuscript, I have a few suggestions for how these new analyses could be made more statistically robust and better contextualized against the main findings of the manuscript. I continue to have some reservations about a tendency for their data to be overinterpreted, and for conclusions to be drawn more strongly than the data actually warrant.
(1) Clarifying the new control analyses. The authors have been responsive to our feedback and implemented several new analyses. The use of a pre-task baseline period and a control brain region (IFG) definitively help to contextualize their results, and the findings shown in the revision do suggest that (1) relative to a pre-task baseline, directed interactions from the AI are stronger and (2) relative to a nearby region, the IFG, the AI exhibits greater outward-directed influence.
However, it is difficult to draw strong quantitative conclusions from the analyses as presented, because they do not directly statistically contrast the effect in question (directed interactions with the FPN and DMN) between two conditions (e.g. during baseline vs. during memory encoding/retrieval). As I understand it, in their main figures the authors ask, "Is there statistically greater influence from the AI to the DMN/FPN in one direction versus another?" And in the AI they show greater "outward" PTE than "inward" PTE from other networks during encoding/retrieval. The balance of directed information favors an outward influence from the AI to DMN/FPN.
But in their new analyses, they simply show that the degree of "outward" PTE is greater during task relative to baseline in (almost) all tasks. I believe a more appropriately matched analysis would be to quantify the inward/outward balance during task states, quantify the inward/outward balance during rest states, and then directly statistically compare the two. It could be that the relative balance of directed information flow is non-significantly changed between task and rest states, which would be important to know.
Likewise, a similar principle applies to their IFG analysis. They show that the IFG tends to have an "inward" balance of influence from the DMN/FPN (the opposite of the AIs effect), but this does not directly answer whether the AI occupies a statistically unique position in terms of the magnitude of its influence on other regions. More appropriate, as I suggest above, would be to quantify the relative balance inward/outward influence, both for the IFG and the AI, and then directly compare those two quantities. (Given the inversion of the direction of effect, this is likely to be a significant result, but I think it deserves a careful approach regardless.)
(2) Consider additional control regions. The authors justify their choice of IFG as a control region very well. In my original comments, I perhaps should have been more clear that the most compelling control analyses here would be to subject every region of the brain outside these networks (with good coverage) to the same analysis, quantify the degree of inward/outward balance, and then see how the magnitude of the AI effect stacks up against all possible other options. If the assertion is that the AI plays a uniquely important role in these memory processes, showing how its influence stacks up against all possible "competitors" would be a very compelling demonstration of their argument.
(3) Reporting of successful vs. unsuccessful memory results. I apologize if I was not clear in my original comment (2.7, pg. 13 of the response document) regarding successful vs. unsuccessful memory. The fact that no significant difference was found in PTE between successful/unsuccessful memory is a very important finding that adds valuable context to the rest of the manuscript. I believe it deserves a figure, at least in the Supplement, so that readers can visualize the extent of the effect in successful/unsuccessful trials. This is especially important now that the manuscript has been reframed to focus more directly on claims regarding episodic memory processing; if that is indeed the focus, and their central analysis does not show a significant effect conditionalized on the success of memory encoding/retrieval, it is important that readers can see these data directly.
(4) Claims regarding causal relationships in the brain. I understand that the authors have defined "causal" in a specific way in the context of their manuscript; I do believe that as a matter of clear and transparent scientific communication, the authors nonetheless bear a responsibility to appreciate how this word may be erroneously interpreted/overinterpreted and I would urge further review of the manuscript to tone down claims of causality. Reflective of this, I was very surprised that even as both reviewers remarked on the need to use the word "causal" with extreme caution, the authors added it to the title in their revised manuscript.