Review History

To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on May 29th, 2013 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on July 5th, 2013.
  • The first revision was submitted on July 8th, 2013 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on July 10th, 2013.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Jul 10, 2013 · Academic Editor


Dear Dr Susana Martinez-Conde,
I am pleased to inform that your manuscript has now been accepted for publication in Peer J.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jul 5, 2013 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Reviewer 1 has asked for additional discussion about why low-contrast stimulation failed to be restored bymicrossacades and the mechanisms that could be involved in the restoration of the foveal target visibility after microsaccades.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

No comments.

Experimental design

No Comments

Validity of the findings

No Comments

Additional comments

The manuscript aimed to investigated a paradigm that previously showed that stationary objects faded without eye movements. The new contribution of the present manuscript was to focus that investigation in the foveal vision. They had interesting results that showed that microsaccades restored the visibility of foveal targets. They showed that the higher stimulus contrast, the higher microsaccade rate. The discussion is very good, but I think they can stress more why low-contrast stimulation failed to be restored by microssacades. What kind of mechanisms would be involved in the restoration of the foveal target visibility after microsaccades? The method used by the authors actually could be used to estimate the contrast sensitivity of that possible mechanism.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The submission adheres to all PeerJ policies.

Experimental design

The experimental design is appropriate and it has been thoroughly explained. The statistical analysis is rigorous including the correction for multiple comparisons.

Validity of the findings

The findings are not only valid but they provide a much needed complement to a previous report by the same authors suggesting that small saccades produced during attempted fixation can restore visibility of faded targets at all eccentricities, including the fovea.

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.