DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/f52yv
Version of the report: 1
Two of the reviewers from Stage 1 kindly returned to evaluate your Stage 2 manuscript and both are very positive about the completed work. As you will see, one of the reviewers (Alan Kingstone) offers some comments on the Introduction. To minimise risk of hindsight bias there are strict limits on the extent to which the introduction section of a Stage 2 submission can be altered. In revising to address the reviewer's comments, please therefore limit any changes to those necessary to (a) correct factual errors or (b) make crucial clarifications that would otherwise lead to readers being misled. Please refrain from shortening any sections or making other stylistic changes, as the opportunity to make such modifications to the introduction was at Stage 1.
I would also suggest one additional revision (not suggested by the reviewers): in the study design table (pp28-30), it would be helpful to add a column to the far right called "Outcome" which reports in simple terms whether each hypothesis was confirmed or disconfirmed. Please also give this table a title and caption. (e.g. Table [N]. Study Design and Outcomes).
Once you have resubmitted, I will issue a final Stage 2 recommendation. Please note that PCI RR is entering its annual shutdown period from 1 Dec - 10 Jan, so if you want to receive a final recommendationn decision this year, you will need to resubmit before 1 Dec.
The authors have done a great job conducting the planned experiments as reported in the previous version of this work. All experiments and results are reported with precision and sufficient details. I am happy with this new, updated, paper, and I can therefore suggest its acceptance in the current form.