Vinod, often flashy and interesting, also often plays a bit fast and loose..a strategy that seems to land his lab good journals, but questionable replication. So I immediately looked at the preprocessing steps in the methods...which is, annoyingly, in supplemental 1. A few comments:
It is written so vaguely, it is difficult to understand what preprocessing steps were done and in which order (which matters). The steps to avoid motion confounds mostly talk about why they didn't do certain things (e.g. GSR regression), and not what they did do (tissue signal covariates?), what about non-GSR based noise cleaning to remove physiological and motion related noise? The study may be good,I just wish it was written more straightforwardly, and less like they are weaving past potential reviewer objections.
Vinod (v) To Vinod a paper is to write it so loose and sexy, so fast and seductive, editors are bound to wake up the morning after with a new babe. (Just a little joke among some colleagues of mine).