Enjoyed
- I really liked the layout. It was clean and easy to understand
- I liked how you used brackets to further explain a topic and linked the word with the Wikipedia article (e.g. “see haemodynamic response”) which also served as a reference
- Using point form and links helped me a lot in understanding the different forms of “classifier training”
- I found easy to read and the procedure steps that were stated with indentation
- I really enjoyed reading the future directions including the potential for this methodology to control robotic limbs although it would be nice to see a reference that expands on this

Possible improvements
- I liked that there was a link to fMRI so I could understand it better but I think that it may be good to use the full name once (e.g. Functional magnetic resonance imaging) like you did with MVPA, ROI and RSA
- I think the statement about MVPA increased popularity may need a reference as it could be seen as an opinion instead of fact
- I found it hard to understand why the comparison with “single-voxel analysis” since it is not clear if there are other forms of analysis of fMRI other than those two
- I found it hard to understand the specifics of some of the pictures so I think that a short explanation underneath them would have helped

Christina Gregory

Things that I thought were good:

I feel like your article was laid out very well:
- like how you started with procedures then moved onto applications and limitations for both MVPA and RSA
- thought that introducing RSA at the end put a lot of emphasis on how it was newer and less researched
- also really liked your "see also" section
really liked how you gave examples for things that you couldn't put links for (example: under the "applications" section)
used bullet points really effectively to organize information and make it easier to read/understand
thought that you took a very objective tone (always listed advantages/applications and disadvantages/limitations)
thought the process section was really well written and very clear
generally used simplistic language

Improvements I might suggest:

there were some points that were a bit confusing:
- using words like "iteration" are maybe a little too complex and could be changed for more simplistic terms
- the RSA section particularly was a little confusing
- may be some opportunities for you to create more links for easier understanding (examples: phylogenetics, algorithm, randomization, sensations and perceptions) - already checked for you :)
although I think that the pictures provide a good way of understanding what you are discussing in the RSA section, I think some more description (either in captions or by referencing to the pictures in the text) would help make them more effective (example: acknowledge the 2D vs 3D in the picture)
in a couple of the sections, the referencing wasn't exactly clear (examples: future directions, dendrograms, visual representations of data) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgregor5 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Cgregor5 (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Changes Based On Reviews

Suggestion	Action	Reason/Description
fMRI in full the first time used	Changed	Great suggestion!
Reference for increased MVPA popularity	Added	Weil & Rees (2010) - Not a new addition, but is appropriate for this use.
State that MVPA and univariate are the 2 types of techniques for this sort of analysis	Minimal Action	This was already stated in the intro, but I now restate it in the "Comparison to single-voxel analysis" section.
Add descriptions in captions	Added	Should now make sense if viewed prior to or in the absence of reading.
Use a word other than "iteration" (or hyperlink it?)	Reworded	You are right. Simpler wording worked just as well.
Attempt to make RSA less confusing	Revisions and figure	I made a few minor revisions, but I cannot think of any ways to further simplify my explanation. I added a figure that should help.
Add links to: phylogenetics, algorithm, randomization, sensations and perceptions	Added all 5	Thanks! I think these references will benefit the readers' understanding.
Acknowledge the 2D vs 3D in the picture	Added	This was a great opportunity for a "see figure" style reference.
Possibly reference the images in-text	Minimal Action	Figures are already referenced in the "Visual representations of data" section introduction where they are stated to "depict the same hypothetical dataset." An in-text reference to the multidimensional scaling figure was added when addressing 2D vs 3D.
Address referencing in future directions	Added	Weil & Rees (2010) - In addition to commenting on MVPA's growing popularity, it proposed some of the future possibilities that I included.
Address referencing in dendrograms	No Action	I believe that linking to dendrogram and hierarchical clustering is sufficient. Together, these pages thoroughly explain dendrograms.
Address referencing in visual representations of data	Added	Both Kriegeskorte papers.

Other Changes

Change	Reason/Description
Changed RDM matrix image slightly ( before to after )	Only correlations between the same conditions should have been completely similar.
Added links for univariate and multivariate	Inspired by reviewer's link suggestions.
Changed several cases of multi-dimensional scaling to multidimensional scaling	To be consistent.
Renamed "Voxel function" header to "Voxel contents and function"	This section focuses on what is contained within a voxel so the new title seems more appropriate.