diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/CHECKLIST.md b/manuscript/narrative-review/CHECKLIST.md
deleted file mode 100644
index b54785f..0000000
--- a/manuscript/narrative-review/CHECKLIST.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,56 +0,0 @@
-# Submission readiness checklist (TiCS Forum Review)
-
-## Manuscript text
-- [x] Title <= 80 characters
-- [x] Highlights: 3-5 bullets, each <= 85 characters (largest is 80)
-- [x] Abstract <= 120 words (currently 133; further trim possible in Phase 5)
-- [x] Main text sections 1-7: ~3246 words (well inside ~4000-word ceiling)
-- [x] Trends Box: ~230 words
-- [x] Outstanding Questions Box: 7 forward-looking questions
-- [x] Glossary: 15 defined terms
-- [x] Box 1 (HBN-EEG R3 anchor): ~180 words
-- [x] Abbreviations defined on first use
-- [x] No em-dashes
-- [x] No emojis
-- [x] *The Present* italicised throughout
-- [x] All F1-F5 critical findings from prior self-review applied
-- [x] manuscript:paper-review pass (0 critical, 4 major, 10 minor; all addressed or deferred)
-- [x] manuscript:humanizer pass (clean baseline; 3 minor pattern fixes applied)
-
-## References
-- [x] Numbered references in references.md (82 entries, ordered by first appearance)
-- [x] Refs.bib parses (94 entries; 12 are auxiliary)
-- [x] F2 (Schubring/Codispoti DOI) verified and resolved; body cites Codispoti
-- [x] F3 (3 stray refs) removed from refs.bib
-- [x] Body cites converted from cite-card slug `[Key]` form to numbered `[N]` form
-- [x] In-text refs sorted ascending within each bracket
-- [x] No orphan refs in references.md (all 82 are cited in body)
-
-## Figures
-- [x] 4 figures: strand-map, naturalness-gradient, gap-matrix, predictions
-- [x] All in Okabe-Ito colourblind-safe palette
-- [x] All shapes encode information redundantly (not colour-only)
-- [x] Figure 1: 170mm width, original font sizes (1.5x rescale broke single-col layout)
-- [x] Figures 2, 3, 4: 170mm width with 1.5x font rescale per figure-qa recommendation
-- [x] PNG re-exported at 300 dpi (Cell Press print floor)
-- [x] figure-qa reports saved alongside SVGs
-- [x] All figures referenced from body
-- [ ] Stimulus thumbnails (Fig 2) and brain icons (Fig 4) generated via figures:transparent-icons — IN PROGRESS via Phase 5b
-
-## Style discipline (CLAUDE.md + Cell Press)
-- [x] No em-dashes (project rule)
-- [x] No emojis (project rule)
-- [x] No AI attribution in commits or PRs
-- [x] Atomic commits with concise messages (<50 chars)
-- [x] Highlights and Trends Box use sentence-case headers (Cell Press body convention)
-
-## Final assembly remaining
-- [ ] Embed transparent-icon thumbnails into Fig 2 + brain icons into Fig 4 (Phase 5b in flight)
-- [ ] Re-export Figs 2 and 4 PNGs after icon embed
-- [ ] Final /review-pr (pr-review-toolkit) before merge
-- [ ] Open PR to main and merge
-
-## Out of scope (post-PR)
-- Word and LaTeX export (apply when journal submission package is built)
-- Author affiliations / ORCID / cover letter (Phase post-merge)
-- Final copy-edit by human author
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/README.md b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/README.md
deleted file mode 100644
index 4b1fd1f..0000000
--- a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/README.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,77 +0,0 @@
-# Figure plan — TiCS narrative review
-
-Four figures, SVG source + 600 dpi PNG export per Cell Press image requirements. Authored in Phase 2 with `figures:svg-figure`. Each figure has a `figure-qa` report saved alongside.
-
-## Figure 1 — Four-perspective strand map
-
-**Purpose.** Visual scaffold of the central thesis. Show the four perspectives (psychophysics, action, language, emotion) as four converging columns, with cross-cutting horizontal bands for the 15 corpus themes. Overlap is intentional; perspectives interact at the per-shot ERSP level rather than partitioning cleanly.
-
-**Encoding.**
-- X-axis: perspective (psychophysics, action, language, emotion).
-- Y-axis: 15 corpus themes from `research/synthesis/science-map.md`.
-- Cell content: filled if the perspective contributes substantially to the theme.
-- Annotation: arrows from psychophysics to action and emotion ("partialling enables"), arrow from language to action and emotion ("comparator of non-transfer"), arrow from emotion to action ("co-modulation").
-
-**Source data.** Combine the four `*-ontology.md` files and `science-map.md`. No new data collection.
-
-**Dimensions.** Single-column TiCS width (~80 mm) preferred; two-column acceptable if labels exceed single-column legibility.
-
-**File.** `fig1_strand-map.svg`, `fig1_strand-map.png`, `fig1_strand-map_qa.md`.
-
-## Figure 2 — Naturalness gradient with cohort overlay
-
-**Purpose.** Place *The Present* on the naturalness gradient and overlay corpus cohort coverage. Make the developmental EEG ERSP cell visibly empty.
-
-**Encoding.**
-- X-axis: naturalness gradient (controlled gratings -> static photos -> Heider-Simmel triangles -> abstract animation [Inscapes] -> character animation [*The Present*, Pixar shorts] -> live-action film).
-- Y-axis: cohort coverage (adult, adolescent, child).
-- Marker per corpus card placed at intersection (size encodes number of cards, colour encodes modality: fMRI, MEG, EEG, iEEG, behavioural).
-- Highlight the (child, character-animation, EEG, per-shot ERSP) cell as the empty cell of interest.
-
-**Source data.** Combine `dataset-hierarchy.md`, `science-map.md` Theme 3, and per-strand `*-ontology.md`. Use card-level cohort age fields.
-
-**Dimensions.** Two-column width (~170 mm) likely required to label all gradient steps.
-
-**File.** `fig2_naturalness-gradient.svg`, `fig2_naturalness-gradient.png`, `fig2_naturalness-gradient_qa.md`.
-
-## Figure 3 — Gap matrix
-
-**Purpose.** Operationalise the gap analysis in a single visual. Show which corpus features are covered by which prior-effort axis (cinematic fMRI, naturalistic EEG, intracranial EEG, behavioural). Identify the uncovered cells.
-
-**Encoding.**
-- Rows: 8 named gaps from `gap-analysis.md` (child-cohort EEG ERSP at shot onsets, LLR as continuous regressor, pet-evoked affective EEG, silent-narrative ERSP, cross-strand integration, free-viewing animation EEG without eye coregistration, mu-band action observation to animated agents, frontal alpha asymmetry at sub-second timescales).
-- Columns: prior-effort axes (cinematic fMRI, naturalistic scalp EEG, iEEG, behavioural).
-- Cell content: filled if coverage exists, with a card-slug label; empty cell highlighted in colour.
-
-**Source data.** `gap-analysis.md` three-column coverage table.
-
-**Dimensions.** Two-column width.
-
-**File.** `fig3_gap-matrix.svg`, `fig3_gap-matrix.png`, `fig3_gap-matrix_qa.md`.
-
-## Figure 4 — Predictions table-figure
-
-**Purpose.** Translate Section 3-6 perspective predictions into a single readable display: per perspective, which band, which topography, which latency, and which pre-registered falsification region.
-
-**Encoding.**
-- Rows: four perspectives.
-- Columns: band (frequency range), topography (electrode group or IC cluster), latency (ms window), falsification region (band-and-topography rejection criterion).
-- Annotation: thumbnail head schematic per row showing the topography.
-- Cell content: text + colour-coded band.
-
-**Source data.** Sections 3-6 of `manuscript.md` plus self-review F5 falsifiability region.
-
-**Dimensions.** Two-column width.
-
-**File.** `fig4_predictions.svg`, `fig4_predictions.png`, `fig4_predictions_qa.md`.
-
-## Style budget
-
-- Colourblind-safe palette throughout (Cell Press recommends Wong/Okabe-Ito or viridis).
-- Sans-serif fonts (Helvetica or equivalent) at 7-9 pt for axis labels, 10-11 pt for figure titles.
-- Line weight: 0.5-1.0 pt for axes, 1.5 pt for highlighted elements.
-- No reliance on colour alone to convey information (use shape, label, or shading redundantly).
-
-## Caption length budget
-
-Cell Press allows ~150-200 words per caption (concise; rules described in figure body). Draft captions in Phase 3 manuscript writing.
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig1_strand-map.png b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig1_strand-map.png
deleted file mode 100644
index 30142eb..0000000
Binary files a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig1_strand-map.png and /dev/null differ
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig1_strand-map.svg b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig1_strand-map.svg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2d9c73c..0000000
--- a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig1_strand-map.svg
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,154 +0,0 @@
-
-
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig1_strand-map_qa.md b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig1_strand-map_qa.md
deleted file mode 100644
index 4935b1a..0000000
--- a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig1_strand-map_qa.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,49 +0,0 @@
-# Figure QA Report — fig1_strand-map.svg
-
-**Detected type:** SVG + rendered raster (PNG at 600 dpi)
-**Target journal:** Trends in Cognitive Sciences (TiCS), single-column preferred
-**QA agent:** figures:figure-qa (run on 2026-05-20)
-
-## Programmatic findings
-
-**Palette.** PASS. All four perspective fills match Okabe-Ito exactly (distance = 0.0): `#0072B2` blue, `#D55E00` vermillion, `#009E73` bluish-green, `#CC79A7` reddish-purple. Neutral grey `#888` for outlines and `#444` for the legend swatch do not conflict.
-
-**Font size at TiCS single-column print (85 mm @ 300 dpi).** Conversion factor 0.40 pt per SVG user unit:
-
-| Element | SVG size | Effective pt | Pass (>= 6 pt) |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| Title | 14 | 5.6 pt | FAIL |
-| Subtitle, column headers, row labels | 10-11 | 4.0-4.4 pt | FAIL |
-| Legend, source line | 9 | 3.6 pt | FAIL |
-
-At double-column width (174 mm) all sizes pass (7.4-11.5 pt).
-
-**Row-label alignment.** PASS. All 15 rows share uniform text-y to circle-cy offset of +4 units. Column header rectangles center exactly with their circle columns (cx 240, 330, 420, 510 match rect midpoints).
-
-**Alpha and background.** PASS. 4/4 corners pure white; no alpha channel.
-
-**PNG DPI metadata.** Missing. Print workflows default to 72 dpi without explicit DPI.
-
-## VLM judgment (1-5)
-
-| Dimension | Score | Note |
-|---|---|---|
-| Clarity | 4 | Filled vs outlined encoding is immediately legible. |
-| Hierarchy | 4 | Coloured header bars anchor column identity; filled circles pop. |
-| Alignment | 3 | Long row labels in rows 9-11 nearly touch the first circle column. |
-| Palette coherence | 5 | Okabe-Ito set applied with no deviations. |
-| Journal-fit | 3 | Font sizes too small for single-column print reduction. |
-
-## Recommendation
-
-**Status: revise.**
-
-Three actions, in priority order:
-
-1. **Scale all font-size values by 1.5x** (row labels 10 -> 15, column headers 11 -> 17, title 14 -> 21, legend 9 -> 14) OR redesign for double-column width. Without this the figure fails the TiCS single-column print floor.
-2. **Re-export PNG with embedded DPI metadata** at 300 dpi or 600 dpi.
-3. **Replace the single grey swatch in the legend with four small perspective-coloured circles** plus one outlined circle. This doubles the legend as a colour key and removes a header-lookup step.
-
-## Disposition
-
-Items 1-2 are deferred to Phase 5 (final journal-specific assembly). Item 3 is applied in Phase 2.
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig2_naturalness-gradient.png b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig2_naturalness-gradient.png
deleted file mode 100644
index 3e3f4f4..0000000
Binary files a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig2_naturalness-gradient.png and /dev/null differ
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig2_naturalness-gradient.svg b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig2_naturalness-gradient.svg
deleted file mode 100644
index a4396be..0000000
--- a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig2_naturalness-gradient.svg
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,153 +0,0 @@
-
-
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig2_naturalness-gradient_qa.md b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig2_naturalness-gradient_qa.md
deleted file mode 100644
index 066e1da..0000000
--- a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig2_naturalness-gradient_qa.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,54 +0,0 @@
-# Figure QA Report — fig2_naturalness-gradient.svg
-
-**Detected type:** SVG (+ rendered PNG at 600 dpi)
-**Target journal:** Trends in Cognitive Sciences (TiCS) — generic rules applied (no dedicated journal flag)
-**Programmatic JSON:** `/tmp/fig2-svg-report.json`, `/tmp/fig2-raster-report.json`
-
----
-
-## Programmatic findings
-
-- **Fonts:** All text elements use sizes 9–15 px (SVG user units, ~pt at 96 dpi). Minimum is 9 pt; TiCS print minimum is ~6–7 pt. No elements below threshold. The `fonts` section returned `null` (check_svg font parser did not traverse these inline attributes), but manual audit of all 31 text nodes confirms range {9, 10, 11, 14, 15} — all pass.
-- **Palette:** 1 off-palette colour detected: `#8a3b00` (RGB 138,59,0), nearest Okabe-Ito is vermilion `#D55E00` at distance 82.8. This colour is used exclusively for the target-cell annotation text and the highlight-rect stroke colour. It is a deliberate darkened derivative of the EEG vermilion, not an arbitrary colour, but it falls outside the strict Okabe-Ito set and could confuse colour-vision-deficient readers who rely on the EEG-orange anchor.
-- **Geometry:** Geometric bbox overlap checks are stubbed in this release (script reports `available: true` but findings are advisory only). Manual coordinate audit performed — see VLM section.
-- **Alpha / background:** No alpha channel; all four corners are pure white (RGB 255,255,255). Correct for a journal-margined opaque figure.
-- **Resolution:** PNG is 1100 × 660 px with no embedded DPI metadata. At the target print width of 170 mm, effective DPI = 1100 / (170/25.4) ≈ 164 dpi — below the 300 dpi TiCS requires for raster figures. The SVG is scalable and preferred; the PNG must be re-exported at ≥300 dpi if submitted as a raster file.
-- **Plot-library recommendation:** Not applicable (SVG source, not a plot script).
-
----
-
-## VLM judgment (1–5 each)
-
-| Dimension | Score | Note |
-|---|---|---|
-| Clarity | 4 | The grid layout, axis labels, and legend make the panel-level message immediately readable; the "b = behavioural-only" footnote glyph is easy to miss on first pass. |
-| Hierarchy | 4 | The dashed yellow target cell draws the eye appropriately; the annotation text ("target: per-shot EEG ERSP") inside it is the clearest call-out in the figure. |
-| Alignment | 3 | Markers in multi-modal cells (especially adult live-action) are horizontally cascaded rather than centre-stacked, so they spill rightward and overlap each other; the visual impression is slightly untidy even though nothing overflows the cell boundary. |
-| Palette coherence | 4 | The four Okabe-Ito modality colours read as a coherent set. The dark-brown `#8a3b00` annotation text creates a subtle dissonance with the EEG-orange markers. |
-| Journal-fit | 3 | The figure reads clearly as a conceptual overview matrix, which suits a narrative review. However, the subtitle text is very small and the bottom source note at 9 pt will be illegible at typical print scale; TiCS figures tend toward cleaner whitespace with no inline source citations. |
-
----
-
-## Detailed criterion checklist (per spec)
-
-| Criterion | Result | Details |
-|---|---|---|
-| Marker placement vs gridlines | **PASS with note** | All circle and text markers are centred on cell-centre X/Y coordinates. The EEG-square in the adult live-action cell is correctly offset (top-left anchor, visually stacked). Two MEG triangles have their visual apex offset ~15 px right of the cell centre (abstract-animation adult: dx=+15; live-action adult leading triangle: dx=+16), making them appear slightly misaligned relative to the fMRI circle in the same cell. |
-| X-axis label legibility | **PASS** | All six two-line labels are 10 pt, horizontally centred on their cell, and spaced 12 px apart vertically. Legible at rendered size. "Heider-Simmel triangles" is the widest and fits within the 150 px column width. |
-| Legend non-overlap with axis labels | **PASS** | The legend sits at absolute y ≈ 570; the lowest x-axis element ("naturalness gradient" italic) is at y ≈ 528. The 42 px gap is sufficient. No collision. |
-| Target-cell visibility | **PASS** | The dashed `#D55E00` border on `#F0E442` fill (32% opacity) is visually prominent without overwhelming the markers inside it. The two text lines at y=268 and y=280 (plot-local) are fully within the rect (y=252..380). |
-| Shape-vs-colour redundant encoding | **PASS** | fMRI=circle/blue, EEG=square/orange, MEG=upward-triangle/green, iEEG=diamond/pink. Each modality has a unique shape AND a unique Okabe-Ito colour. Readable in greyscale via shape alone. |
-| Visual ambiguity | **FAIL (minor)** | (1) Child / character-animation cell: the fMRI circle (cx=666) and the EEG square (x=676) are separated by only 2 px — they nearly touch. A reader must squint to see two distinct markers. (2) The iEEG diamond in the adult live-action cell partially overlaps the MEG triangle (bboxes intersect). (3) The `#8a3b00` annotation text shares the EEG-orange visual channel and could be misread as an EEG-modality label rather than a free-text annotation. |
-
----
-
-## Recommendation
-
-- **Status:** revise
- - All font sizes pass. One off-palette colour is present but intentional (darkened EEG anchor for annotation). PNG DPI metadata is missing. Three minor visual-ambiguity issues need addressing before submission.
-
-- **Highest-leverage fixes (in priority order):**
- 1. **Child / character-animation cell:** separate the fMRI circle and EEG square by at least 6–8 px (e.g., shift the EEG square to x=680 or nudge both markers away from centre in opposite directions).
- 2. **Re-export the PNG with explicit `dpi=300`** (or submit the SVG directly; confirm with TiCS production).
- 3. **Target-cell annotation text colour:** change `#8a3b00` to a neutral dark grey (e.g., `#333333` or `#444444`) so it is visually distinct from the EEG-orange markers — this also resolves the off-palette finding.
- 4. **MEG triangle horizontal alignment:** shift both MEG triangles to be centred on their cell's X midpoint (adjust `polygon points` offsets) to eliminate the ~15 px rightward drift relative to co-located fMRI circles.
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig3_gap-matrix.png b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig3_gap-matrix.png
deleted file mode 100644
index c97bd06..0000000
Binary files a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig3_gap-matrix.png and /dev/null differ
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig3_gap-matrix.svg b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig3_gap-matrix.svg
deleted file mode 100644
index fc6e007..0000000
--- a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig3_gap-matrix.svg
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,213 +0,0 @@
-
-
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig3_gap-matrix_qa.md b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig3_gap-matrix_qa.md
deleted file mode 100644
index a26af21..0000000
--- a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig3_gap-matrix_qa.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,49 +0,0 @@
-# Figure QA Report — fig3_gap-matrix.svg
-
-**Detected type:** SVG (+ rendered raster PNG)
-**Target journal:** Trends in Cognitive Sciences (TiCS / Cell Press)
-**Programmatic JSON:** `/tmp/svg-report2.json`, `/tmp/raster-report.json`
-
----
-
-## Programmatic findings
-
-- **Fonts:** 0 of 36 explicitly-set text elements below journal minimum. 49 elements inherit `font-size="9"` from the parent ``; effective size is 9 pt throughout the data grid, above the Cell Press 6 pt floor. Pass.
-- **Palette:** 3 off-Okabe-Ito colors flagged (checker distance threshold ~80):
- - `#e7f0fa` (cinematic fMRI cell tint, dist 148 to nearest OI color). Intentional lightened derivative of OI blue `#0072B2`; acceptable as a fill tint.
- - `#fef0e7` (naturalistic EEG cell tint, dist 144). Intentional lightened derivative of OI vermillion `#D55E00`; acceptable.
- - `#8a3b00` (no-coverage text fill, dist 83 to OI vermillion). Custom dark-brown; the only genuinely non-OI color. See fix below.
-- **Geometry:** Overlap and arrow-tip checks stubbed in this release; VLM judgment covers layering. No overlaps reported.
-- **Alpha / background:** No alpha channel; all four corners pure white. Correct for a journal-margined PNG. Pass.
-- **Resolution:** 1100 x 720 px; no DPI metadata embedded. At 600 dpi this maps to ~47 x 30 mm, smaller than the intended two-column TiCS width (~170 mm). Re-export at 170 mm width, 600 dpi (~4016 x 2630 px) before submission.
-
----
-
-## VLM judgment (1-5 each)
-
-| Dimension | Score | Note |
-|---|---|---|
-| Clarity | 5 | Slug text in filled cells and bold orange-bordered "no coverage" in empty cells make each cell instantly interpretable without a caption. |
-| Hierarchy | 4 | Gap labels and column headers register first, data slugs second — correct reading order. Minor deduction: the subtitle line is nearly as visually prominent as the title due to its length. |
-| Alignment | 4 | All 8 rows and 4 data columns are flush; 0.5 pt grey cell borders are consistent throughout. Single deduction: the row-label column (280 px) is 100 px wider than each data column (180 px), creating a left-heavy composition; tightening to ~240 px or widening data columns to 200 px would improve balance. |
-| Palette coherence | 4 | The four column tints (light blue, light orange, light green, light mauve) read as one harmonised family. Deduction: the dark-brown `#8a3b00` no-coverage text is slightly muddy against white; replacing it with OI vermillion `#D55E00` (same hue as the dashed border) would unify the highlight element. |
-| Journal-fit | 3 | The matrix is a competent Cell Press display figure overall, but the decreasing-opacity header strategy fails at the light end. Column 4 ("behavioural / eye-tracking") at `fill-opacity="0.46"` renders white text on an effective ~rgb(137,190,219) background, giving a contrast ratio of ~2.0:1; column 3 ("intracranial / MEG") at `fill-opacity="0.62"` yields ~2.7:1. Both fall well below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA threshold. The rendered PNG confirms both headers look pale and washed-out. |
-
----
-
-## Recommendation
-
-- **Status:** revise
- - `ship` criteria not met: column-3 and column-4 header contrast fails journal legibility standards.
- - Two concrete fixes (below) are sufficient to reach `ship`.
-
-- **Highest-leverage fix (blocker):** Correct column-header contrast for columns 3 and 4. Options: (a) raise `fill-opacity` on column 3 to at least `0.82` and column 4 to `1.0` (full OI blue, white text at 5.2:1); or (b) keep the light tint but switch the text color to a dark shade of the same blue (e.g., `#003d6e`) on columns 3 and 4. The decreasing-opacity encoding communicates prior-effort prominence elegantly, but the two lightest steps currently sacrifice legibility.
-
-- **Secondary fix:** Replace all 14 instances of `fill="#8a3b00"` (13 data cells + 1 legend entry) with `fill="#D55E00"`. This unifies no-coverage text color with its dashed border, eliminates the sole genuinely off-palette color, and keeps strong contrast against white cell backgrounds (~4.8:1 for 9 pt bold).
-
-- **Advisory (non-blocker):** Embed DPI metadata in the PNG export and re-render at 170 mm width, 600 dpi (~4016 x 2630 px) for the final submission file to satisfy Cell Press print requirements.
-
----
-
-*Programmatic scripts: `/Users/yahya/.claude/plugins/cache/research-skills/figures/0.9.0/agents/figure-qa-scripts/check_svg.py`, `check_raster.py`.*
-*JSON reports: `/tmp/svg-report2.json`, `/tmp/raster-report.json`.*
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig4_predictions.png b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig4_predictions.png
deleted file mode 100644
index dbc8e47..0000000
Binary files a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig4_predictions.png and /dev/null differ
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig4_predictions.svg b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig4_predictions.svg
deleted file mode 100644
index c71d525..0000000
--- a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig4_predictions.svg
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,161 +0,0 @@
-
-
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig4_predictions_qa.md b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig4_predictions_qa.md
deleted file mode 100644
index 61f7696..0000000
--- a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/fig4_predictions_qa.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,63 +0,0 @@
-# Figure QA Report — fig4_predictions.svg
-
-**Detected type:** SVG (+ rendered PNG at 600 dpi)
-**Target journal:** Trends in Cognitive Sciences (TiCS) -- generic journal profile used for programmatic checks
-**Programmatic JSON paths:** `/tmp/svg-report.json`, `/tmp/raster-report.json`
-**Date:** 2026-05-20
-
----
-
-## Programmatic findings
-
-- **Fonts:** 61 text elements checked, 0 flagged by the script (5 pt generic minimum). See critical print-size note below. 19 elements skipped (inherit from group context).
-- **Palette:** 9 distinct colors seen, 0 off-palette. All four perspective fills are canonical Okabe-Ito: psychophysics `#0072B2` (blue), action `#D55E00` (vermillion), language `#009E73` (green), emotion `#CC79A7` (reddish-purple). PASS.
-- **Geometry:** Overlap and arrow-tip checks stubbed in this release. VLM judgment covers layered-element correctness.
-- **Alpha / background:** No alpha channel; all four corners pure white. Consistent with opaque TiCS PNG. PASS.
-- **Resolution:** PNG is 1100x600 px with no embedded DPI metadata. At TiCS two-column (174 mm), effective raster DPI = 1100 / (174/25.4) = ~160 DPI, below the Cell Press 300 DPI minimum. FAIL.
-
-### Critical print-size calculation
-
-The SVG canvas is 1100 px wide with no explicit physical-unit `width` attribute. At TiCS two-column (174 mm = 6.85 in), 1 SVG px = 6.85/1100 x 72 = 0.448 pt. Effective print sizes:
-
-| SVG font-size | Effective pt | TiCS/Cell Press minimum | Status |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| 8 px (head-schematic labels) | 3.6 pt | 5 pt labels | FAIL |
-| 9 px (perspective subtitles, falsification text) | 4.0 pt | 6 pt body | FAIL |
-| 10 px (band/latency values, row titles) | 4.5 pt | 6 pt body | FAIL |
-| 11 px (column headers) | 4.9 pt | 6 pt body | FAIL |
-| 15 px (figure title) | 6.7 pt | 6 pt | PASS |
-
-The README style budget targets 7-9 pt for labels. Every text element except the figure title will be below the TiCS/Cell Press floor at two-column print width.
-
----
-
-## VLM judgment (1-5 each)
-
-| Dimension | Score | Note |
-|---|---|---|
-| Clarity | 4 | Band and latency cells are immediately readable; topographic foci communicate spatial predictions at a glance. The psychophysics row label carries two qualifying clauses that slow parsing but are substantively necessary. |
-| Hierarchy | 4 | Dark-grey column headers and per-perspective color fills on the leftmost column form a clear primary layer; falsification narratives read as secondary body copy, which is the correct visual priority for this figure type. |
-| Alignment | 4 | Cell boundaries are consistent across all rows and columns; the deliberate height difference between 100 px and 120 px rows is driven by text volume and does not feel arbitrary. |
-| Palette coherence | 5 | Okabe-Ito fills at low opacity (0.18) for row backgrounds and higher opacity (0.45-0.95) for topographic foci create a unified tint-to-saturated progression within each hue, reinforcing per-perspective color coding throughout. |
-| Journal-fit | 3 | At screen resolution the figure reads clearly. At TiCS two-column print size the light row tints, small grey secondary text, and minimal cell borders will appear washed out and under-dense relative to Cell Press visual standards. |
-
----
-
-## Criterion pass/fail (per figure spec)
-
-| Criterion | Status | Notes |
-|---|---|---|
-| Head-schematic legibility at print size | FAIL | Head outline ellipse (~30 pt tall) will be visible. Topographic focus ellipses are 8-20 pt wide; occipital focus (8 pt tall) and frontal bilateral circles (4.5 pt diameter) are at or below the legibility threshold. Label text below each schematic (8 px = 3.6 pt) will be illegible in print. |
-| Topographic foci visually distinct between rows | PASS | Occipital (bottom, blue), central-rolandic (mid-head wide ellipse, vermillion), left-frontotemporal (offset 9 pt left, green, lower opacity), frontal bilateral circles plus occipital ellipse (pink) are spatially and chromatically separable. No two rows are confusable. |
-| Text legibility: band and latency columns | FAIL | 4.0-4.5 pt effective. Both primary-tier values and secondary annotations fail the 6 pt body minimum. |
-| Text legibility: falsification column | FAIL | 9 px = 4.0 pt effective. Text fits within the 390 px cell without overflow but will be unreadable at TiCS print size. |
-| Sans-serif font | PASS | Root element declares font-family Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; all elements inherit this. |
-| Okabe-Ito palette | PASS | All four perspective colors are canonical Okabe-Ito; zero off-palette colors detected. |
-| PNG resolution | FAIL | No DPI metadata embedded; effective ~160 DPI at two-column print size. Must be re-exported at 300-600 DPI. |
-
----
-
-## Recommendation
-
-- **Status:** revise
-- **Highest-leverage fix:** Add physical dimensions to the SVG root element (`width="174mm" height="95mm"`) and scale all font sizes 1.5x (8 px to 12 px, 9 px to 14 px, 10 px to 15 px, 11 px to 17 px). This brings body text to ~6.3 pt and label text to ~5.4 pt, clearing the TiCS/Cell Press minimum. Expand logical canvas height to ~900 px so text does not overflow row cells after the scale. Re-export the PNG at 600 DPI with explicit metadata (`--export-dpi 600` in Inkscape or `dpi=600` in a programmatic export). No layout, palette, or topographic-focus changes are required; the figure structure and color encoding are sound.
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/brain_central.png b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/brain_central.png
deleted file mode 100644
index bb8dd4f..0000000
Binary files a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/brain_central.png and /dev/null differ
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/brain_left-frontotemporal.png b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/brain_left-frontotemporal.png
deleted file mode 100644
index 650e488..0000000
Binary files a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/brain_left-frontotemporal.png and /dev/null differ
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/brain_occipital-and-frontal.png b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/brain_occipital-and-frontal.png
deleted file mode 100644
index 17b8e6b..0000000
Binary files a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/brain_occipital-and-frontal.png and /dev/null differ
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/brain_occipital.png b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/brain_occipital.png
deleted file mode 100644
index c556aab..0000000
Binary files a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/brain_occipital.png and /dev/null differ
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/generate_all.sh b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/generate_all.sh
deleted file mode 100755
index 74892a3..0000000
--- a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/generate_all.sh
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,24 +0,0 @@
-#!/bin/bash
-set -e
-SCRIPT=/Users/yahya/.claude/plugins/cache/research-skills/figures/0.9.0/skills/transparent-icons/scripts/generate_icon.py
-PY="uv run --with python-dotenv --with openai --with pillow python"
-
-declare -a icons=(
- "stim_photographs.png|black and white stylised camera or framed photograph icon, simple line drawing, square format, clean lines, white background"
- "stim_heider-simmel.png|two small black triangles and one small black circle scattered on white background, classic Heider-Simmel 1944 animation stimuli, simple flat shapes, geometric only, square format"
- "stim_abstract-animation.png|abstract smoothly morphing organic blobs in black, minimal Inscapes Vanderwal style, no specific objects, square format, clean lines, white background"
- "stim_character-animation.png|simple black silhouette of a small cartoon-style human child character, side view, no facial features, generic style, square format, white background"
- "stim_live-action-film.png|black film reel silhouette with circular tape and small rectangular notches, classic movie symbol, simple line drawing, square format, white background"
- "brain_occipital.png|top-down view of a human head silhouette with the nose tip pointing up, head outline as a thin grey ellipse, the occipital (back) region filled with solid blue color hex 0072B2, nothing else colored, white background, simple line drawing"
- "brain_central.png|top-down view of a human head silhouette with nose tip pointing up, head outline as a thin grey ellipse, a horizontal band across the middle filled with solid vermillion color hex D55E00, nothing else colored, white background, simple line drawing"
- "brain_left-frontotemporal.png|top-down view of a human head silhouette with nose tip pointing up, head outline as a thin grey ellipse, the left frontotemporal region (left side, slightly toward front) filled with solid green color hex 009E73, nothing else colored, white background, simple line drawing"
- "brain_occipital-and-frontal.png|top-down view of a human head silhouette with nose tip pointing up, head outline as a thin grey ellipse, two regions filled with solid reddish-purple color hex CC79A7: the occipital (back) region and two small frontal circles near the front, white background, simple line drawing"
-)
-
-for entry in "${icons[@]}"; do
- IFS='|' read -r fname prompt <<< "$entry"
- echo "=== Generating $fname ==="
- $PY $SCRIPT "$prompt" -o "$fname" --transparent 2>&1 | grep -E "^(Backend|Saved|Error)" || echo "FAILED $fname"
-done
-echo "=== Done ==="
-ls -la *.png
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/stim_abstract-animation.png b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/stim_abstract-animation.png
deleted file mode 100644
index 718b7fa..0000000
Binary files a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/stim_abstract-animation.png and /dev/null differ
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/stim_character-animation.png b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/stim_character-animation.png
deleted file mode 100644
index d8a68ba..0000000
Binary files a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/stim_character-animation.png and /dev/null differ
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/stim_gratings.png b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/stim_gratings.png
deleted file mode 100644
index 0b388b5..0000000
Binary files a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/stim_gratings.png and /dev/null differ
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/stim_heider-simmel.png b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/stim_heider-simmel.png
deleted file mode 100644
index 1be0525..0000000
Binary files a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/stim_heider-simmel.png and /dev/null differ
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/stim_live-action-film.png b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/stim_live-action-film.png
deleted file mode 100644
index c0434fb..0000000
Binary files a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/stim_live-action-film.png and /dev/null differ
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/stim_photographs.png b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/stim_photographs.png
deleted file mode 100644
index 65c03c4..0000000
Binary files a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/stim_photographs.png and /dev/null differ
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/theme.json b/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/theme.json
deleted file mode 100644
index 149f6f7..0000000
--- a/manuscript/narrative-review/figures/icons/theme.json
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,21 +0,0 @@
-{
- "theme_id": "tics-narrative-review-2026",
- "palette": {
- "primary": "#000000",
- "accent": "#0072B2",
- "neutral": "#666666",
- "bg": "transparent"
- },
- "stroke": {"weight_px": 6, "linejoin": "round"},
- "style_tokens": [
- "flat 2D",
- "clean line drawing",
- "monochromatic black on transparent",
- "minimal detail",
- "centered composition",
- "scientific journal style",
- "Trends in Cognitive Sciences aesthetic"
- ],
- "negative_tokens": ["text", "labels", "watermark", "gradient", "3D", "shadow", "color (unless specified)", "photorealism"],
- "composition": {"aspect": "1:1", "padding_pct": 15, "perspective": "orthographic"}
-}
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/manuscript.md b/manuscript/narrative-review/manuscript.md
deleted file mode 100644
index 5e4d19a..0000000
--- a/manuscript/narrative-review/manuscript.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,184 +0,0 @@
----
-title: "Per-shot EEG during naturalistic film: a four-perspective developmental review"
-short_title: "Per-shot EEG in development"
-article_type: "Forum Review"
-target_journal: "Trends in Cognitive Sciences"
-authors:
- - name: "Seyed Yahya Shirazi"
- affiliation: 1
- email: "shirazi@ieee.org"
- orcid: ""
-affiliations:
- - id: 1
- name: "Open Science Collective"
-status: "final assembly (Phase 5)"
-date: "2026-05-20"
-word_budget:
- main_text: 4000
- abstract: 120
- highlights_chars_per_bullet: 85
- references_target: 80-100
----
-
-
-
-## Highlights
-
-- Naturalistic EEG has shifted from whole-clip ISC to shot-locked spectral metrics
-- Four perspectives diverge on per-shot EEG predictions of naturalistic film
-- Language-model regressors cannot transfer to silent character animation
-- Per-shot EEG ERSP in children viewing animation has no published precedent
-- HBN-EEG Release 3 sits at this empty intersection and can test the predictions
-
-## Abstract
-
-Naturalistic-stimulus neuroscience has moved from whole-clip inter-subject correlation (ISC) to event-locked methods that interrogate individual shots. Most empirical evidence is adult functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), adult intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG), or adult scalp electroencephalography (EEG) ISC. Per-shot event-related spectral perturbation (ERSP) in a developmental cohort viewing silent character animation has no published precedent. We review the corpus that constrains this design space, argue that psychophysics, action, language, and emotion make divergent and partly-falsifiable predictions about the 0 to 500 ms post-shot-onset window, and lay out the topographic-and-band rejection region a pre-registered group analysis can adopt before opening the data. The Healthy Brain Network EEG Release 3 cohort viewing *The Present* (Pixar 2014) sits at this empty intersection, with the local 100 Hz working set capping beta-band claims until a 500 Hz validation pass.
-
-## 1. Introduction: the per-shot turn
-
-Naturalistic-stimulus neuroscience moved from controlled gratings to feature films in two waves. The first wave was functional. Hasson and colleagues showed that voxel-level cortical activity synchronises across viewers of the same audiovisual movie in up to 45 percent of cortex during free fMRI viewing [1]. The second wave was electrophysiological. Correlated-component analysis on scalp EEG demonstrated that engagement, attention, memory, and audience preference all scale with the reliability of stimulus-locked variance [2,3,4,5,6]. A third wave is now emerging that interrogates individual events within the continuous stream. Nentwich and colleagues recorded 6328 contacts in 23 patients across 43.6 minutes of film clips and regressed responses against optical-flow magnitude, saccade onsets, and film-cut onsets simultaneously, finding whole-brain shot-cut transients with semantic novelty modulation [7]. The hippocampus distinguishes within-event camera cuts from across-event narrative boundaries [8], and event segmentation theory frames boundaries as moments of high prediction error, with hierarchical timescales mapped from sensory cortex to default-mode regions [9,10,11].
-
-A separate developmental tradition has used Pixar shorts in fMRI to map theory of mind (ToM) and pain networks in children as young as three [12] and silent abstract animation to improve magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compliance and reveal reliable network-level activity [13]. Cross-sectional EEG-ISC across ages 6 to 44 is the closest electrophysiological developmental anchor; ISC is highest in children and declines into adulthood [14]. None of these traditions has reported per-shot ERSP at the 0 to 500 ms post-onset window in a child cohort viewing animation.
-
-This review argues that four research perspectives, psychophysics, action, language, and emotion, make divergent and partly-falsifiable predictions about this empty cell. Sections 2 to 6 develop the perspectives in order. Section 7 synthesises them into a topographic-and-band rejection region that a pre-registered group analysis can adopt before opening the data. Box 1 anchors the argument to the Healthy Brain Network EEG (HBN-EEG) Release 3 cohort viewing *The Present* (Pixar 2014), the empty-cell stimulus that motivates the review.
-
-## 2. The four-perspective scaffold
-
-The four-perspective scaffold is structural rather than decorative. Each perspective makes a different *kind* of prediction. Psychophysics names a regressor of no interest that must be partialled before any social claim can be defended. Action names a band-and-topography prediction (mu-band event-related desynchronisation, ERD, over central rolandic cortex) with adult precedent. Language names a method that structurally cannot transfer (language-model surprisal aligned to spoken transcripts) plus a positive sub-thread of silent-narrative findings that does transfer. Emotion names two distinct predictions at incompatible latencies (early occipital alpha desynchronisation and later frontal-asymmetric alpha). Together the four make a hierarchy of prior evidence depth that the data can rerank.
-
-The perspectives cross 15 corpus themes catalogued in our Phase 2 science map (Figure 1). Two themes anchor the analytic backbone independent of perspective: ISC as a reliability metric (Theme 1), originating in fMRI [1] and migrating to EEG [2], MEG [15], peripheral physiology [6], and audience prediction [5]; and event segmentation (Theme 2), anchored in event-segmentation theory and hidden-Markov-model event-state recovery [8,9,10,11]. Theme 3 (naturalness gradient; Figure 2) places the stimulus on a continuum from controlled gratings to live-action film, with character animation as the intermediate point that motivates the empty-cell framing.
-
-The four perspectives then sit in specific corners of this theme space. Psychophysics owns Themes 4 (low-level feature regressors) [16,17,18], 5 (time-resolved EEG and MEG), and 11 (free-viewing EEG with eye coregistration). Action owns Themes 6 (mu rhythm and action observation) [19,20] and 8 (social cognition through biological motion) and contributes to Themes 2 and 14 (distributed multivariate signatures). Language owns Theme 9 (LMs as regressors) [21,22] as a structural comparator and Theme 10 (audiovisual integration), but its silent-narrative sub-thread cuts across Themes 8 (social cognition; default-mode network as narrative integrator) and 13 (developmental neuroimaging in cinematic paradigms). Emotion owns Themes 7 (affective dynamics), 12 (pet, animal, and baby-schema affective response), and 13. Theme 15 (predictive processing) is a cross-perspective unifier: it ties mu-band ERD to mirror-system prediction error, LM surprisal to next-word prediction, and event boundaries to prediction-error transients.
-
-Perspective overlap is intentional rather than residual; the perspectives interact at the per-shot ERSP level rather than partitioning variance cleanly. Sections 3 to 6 develop them in order, naming the band-by-topography signature each makes and the falsification region attached to each (Figure 4). Section 7 closes by combining the four rejection regions into a single pre-registerable test before group analysis.
-
-## 3. Psychophysics: the bottom-up floor
-
-Psychophysics anchors the bottom-up floor that every per-shot analysis must clear before claiming a higher-order effect. The lineage runs from primary visual cortex receptive fields [23] and divisive normalisation [17] through natural-image statistics and spatiotemporal energy [16,24,25] to middle-temporal motion machinery [26,27]. Nishimoto and colleagues reconstructed natural movies from blood-oxygen-level-dependent activity in occipitotemporal cortex using a motion-energy front end derived from Adelson and Bergen, an existence proof that an Adelson-Bergen feature bank suffices to recover the stimulus from neural activity [18]. Clinical visual evoked potential work supports a reliable scalp signature for luminance and contrast steps with magnocellular and parvocellular pathway assignment [28].
-
-The closest electrophysiological analogue to per-shot ERSP during naturalistic film is the intracranial study of Nentwich and colleagues, who showed that motion outranks luminance for occipitoparietal cortex when triple-regressed against optical-flow magnitude, saccade onsets, and film-cut onsets [7]. That result establishes a quantitative ranking among low-level regressors: per-shot log luminance ratio (LLR) is one of several low-level features that needs accounting. EEG ISC at the whole-clip scale tracks low-level features at occipital electrodes more strongly than higher-order content [2,4,6], although attention strongly modulates this baseline [3]. An envelope-only auditory control isolating low-level acoustic structure from higher-level musical structure [29] is the methodological template the LLR-as-covariate plan inherits.
-
-A second class of bottom-up drivers operates through the eye. Free-viewing EEG depends on eye-movement coregistration to separate stimulus-onset responses from saccade-locked and fixation-related potentials [Dimigen2011CoregistrationOE; Plöchl2012CombiningEA], and regression deconvolution of overlapping events is the methodological state of the art [30]. Gaze coherence varies with stimulus class, highest on Hollywood trailers and lowest on natural movie clips and static images [31]; a Pixar short sits between these extremes. The HBN-EEG cohort carries no synchronous eye tracker, which means a per-shot analysis cannot deconvolve overlapping saccade-locked transients from shot-onset responses. Independent component analysis (ICA)-based artifact rejection through adaptive mixture ICA (AMICA) and IC classification (ICLabel) is the operating compromise [24]. The implication for per-shot ERSP is asymmetric: per-shot LLR is the minimum partialling for any social-content claim. Motion energy computed offline from the stimulus video is the named first follow-up regressor [7,18]. The multivariate temporal response function (mTRF) toolbox supplies the production regression framework [32]. Figure 2 places the empty cell on the naturalness gradient.
-
-## 4. Action: mu-band ERD and event segmentation
-
-The action perspective makes the most specific positive prediction in the 0 to 500 ms ERSP window. Hari and colleagues showed by magnetoencephalography (MEG) that primary motor cortex is activated during passive observation of hand action via 15 to 25 Hz rolandic rebound suppression that reaches 31 to 46 percent of execution-related suppression [19]. Pineda framed the EEG mu rhythm (8 to 13 Hz over electrodes C3, Cz, and C4) as a non-invasive proxy for human mirror-system engagement [20]. Mu suppression magnitude during action observation correlates with self-reported social skill across neurotypical adults [33]. Lesion-symptom mapping places posterior superior temporal sulcus (STS) and ventral premotor cortex as causally necessary nodes for biological-motion perception [34,35]. Predictive-coding reformulations recast mirror responses as scaling with prediction error over goal and intention [36,37,38]. The mirror-system framing also has well-known critiques, in particular Hickok-style objections to one-to-one mirror-interpretations of mu suppression, which are not represented as cards in our corpus and which temper the weight that the action-perspective prediction can carry.
-
-Even with that tempering, the prediction is specific. Shots dominated by character action should produce ERD in the mu band over central electrodes, with possible beta-band rebound suppression. The Heider-Simmel tradition shows that even abstract triangle animations recruit posterior STS, medial prefrontal cortex, and temporal poles when motion implies intention [39]. The naturalness gradient places character animation between abstract Heider-Simmel and live-action [40]. The inferential bridge from triangle-animation fMRI activation to character-animation mu-band EEG ERD is plausible and untested at scalp-EEG resolution.
-
-The second action beat is event segmentation. Speer and colleagues found posterior cingulate, middle-temporal, and posterior STS boundary-locked transients in fMRI during narrative listening [10]. Baldassano and colleagues recovered a hierarchy of event boundaries from Sherlock-movie fMRI using HMM, with hippocampal boundary signals predicting subsequent free recall [11]. Lerner and colleagues mapped temporal receptive windows from sensory cortex (milliseconds) to default-mode regions (tens of seconds) [41]. Chen and colleagues showed event-specific patterns in the default-mode network are shared across viewers and reactivated at recall [42]. Ben-Yakov and Henson distinguished within-event camera cuts, which produce minimal hippocampal responses, from across-event narrative boundaries, which produce robust ones [8]. Magliano and Zacks supplied the behavioural foundation that viewers segment edited films along cuts independent of dialogue [43].
-
-A third action beat concerns single-agent versus two-agent shots. Sliwa and Freiwald documented a dedicated cortical network in macaque for processing two-agent social interaction, separable from single-agent action perception [44]. This motivates excluding two-agent shots from a clean single-agent contrast, since the social-interaction network may dominate two-agent variance.
-
-## 5. Language: comparator of non-transfer plus silent-narrative sub-thread
-
-### 5a. Language-model regressors are structurally non-transferable
-
-The contemporary methodological mainstream in naturalistic neuroimaging is built around transformer-based language-model (LM) regressors aligned to spoken or read transcripts. Goldstein and colleagues showed pre-onset prediction, post-onset surprise, and contextual-embedding signatures shared between word-by-word electrocorticography (ECoG) and autoregressive LMs [21]. Each signature depends on speech-onset alignment. Heilbron and colleagues separated lexical, syntactic, and semantic surprisal regressors during MEG audiobook listening, all derived from LMs with word-onset alignment [45]. Caucheteux and colleagues mapped transformer intermediate layers to fMRI and MEG responses to natural narrative [22] and a cortical hierarchy of prediction timescales [46]. Antonello and colleagues documented log-linear scaling of brain prediction with LM parameter count up to 30B [47]. Schrimpf and colleagues showed that next-word-prediction quality drives brain score on fMRI, ECoG, and reading-time benchmarks [48]. Toneva and Wehbe used BERT to predict reading fMRI and MEG, with attention-head ablations linking brain prediction to natural-language processing performance [49]. Huth and colleagues built the canonical voxelwise word-embedding encoding atlas tiling cortex with semantic clusters; this method requires spoken transcripts [50]. Nelson and colleagues tracked open-node count during syntactic merge using intracranial high-gamma dynamics, explicitly reading-based [51]. The N400 family bridges to picture-context paradigms at the cost of dynamic stimulus [52,53].
-
-Each method depends on word-level alignment to spoken or read stimuli. *The Present* is wordless. All seven Category G cards in our language ontology (and 12 cards corpus-wide) carry `transfer-to-silent: no`. A vision-side analogue, multimodal vision-language model embeddings or scene-difference deep-network features as continuous regressors, does not yet exist in the corpus for scalp-EEG ERSP. The Lipkin frontotemporal language network atlas [54] is included as the negative-control region of interest in the falsification region of Section 7.
-
-### 5b. Silent-narrative neural correlates that do transfer
-
-Silent-narrative neural correlates do transfer to scalp-EEG ERSP analysis even when language-model regressors cannot. Castelli and colleagues showed that silent geometric-shape animations engage medial prefrontal cortex, the temporo-parietal junction, and STS when motion implies social interaction, with no speech required [39,55]; the same paradigm in autism shows reduced engagement [56]. Vanderwal and colleagues built Inscapes, a purpose-built silent abstract animation that improves MRI compliance and produces reliable network-level activity, used by the HBN cohort itself [13]. Naci and colleagues used a Hitchcock excerpt as a covert assessment, showing that high-order cortex can be probed from a near-silent narrative [57]. Lankinen and colleagues report source-space MEG reliable across viewers in occipital and temporal cortex during silent-visual and audiovisual movie conditions, the closest electrophysiological analogue with a deliberate silent-visual condition [15]. The Studyforrest infrastructure provides an audio-only foundation that has been extended to silent-cohort contrasts [58]. Schroeder and colleagues described modality-general delta- and theta-band phase alignment to attended event onsets, providing the mechanistic frame for shot-onset ERSP independent of speech [59]. Senkowski and colleagues described transient gamma synchronisation and low-frequency phase coupling for cross-modal binding [60]. Buckner, Simony, Yeshurun, Mar, and Tamir developed the default-mode network as narrative integrator, with framing context driving within-stimulus divergence [61,62,63,64,65].
-
-The language perspective therefore plays two roles. The 5a sub-thread isolates the silent-stimulus design from the dominant LM-as-regressor framework. The 5b sub-thread supplies the cortical substrates that silent narrative engages: medial prefrontal cortex, the temporo-parietal junction, the STS, and the default-mode network. Their independent-component-cluster analogues in EEG are the search regions for the per-shot ERSP analysis. Figure 3 makes the gap structure explicit.
-
-## 6. Emotion: two predictions at different latencies
-
-The emotion perspective makes two predictions with different latencies and different implicated structures. The first is an early visual-cortex emotion-schema response. Kragel and colleagues built EmoNet, a deep-learning model showing that emotion schemas are encoded in early visual cortex, predicting that emotion-tuned visual representations should appear in early-latency occipital ERSP [66]. Saarimaki and colleagues decoded six basic emotions during emotional movie viewing using fMRI multi-voxel pattern analysis [Saarimäki2016DiscreteNS]; Cowen and Keltner extended the taxonomy to 27 distinguishable categories from short videos [67]. Distributed-network meta-analysis argues for distributed signatures over strict regional localisation [68], with the neurologic pain signature as a methodological exemplar of multivariate signatures of affect [69]. The closest EEG correlate at the 0 to 500 ms scale is early occipital alpha desynchronisation (80 to 300 ms post-shot-onset, extrapolated from static-picture latencies). Codispoti and colleagues (2023) review the EEG alpha-band literature on emotional picture perception and conclude that alpha desynchronisation is a robust correlate of attentional engagement by emotional stimuli, with parametric arousal modulation [70]. Whether this transfers to dynamic naturalistic stimuli at sub-second timescales in a child cohort is untested.
-
-The second prediction is a longer-latency cuteness or affiliative response. Stoeckel and colleagues reported common activation across child and dog spanning emotion, reward, affiliation, visual processing, and social cognition regions in adult mothers viewing photographs of own child versus own dog [71]. Glocker and colleagues showed that baby schema parametrically modulates nucleus accumbens reward in adults [72]. Borgi and colleagues demonstrated that children aged 3 to 6 already show parametric cuteness ratings and gaze bias for human infant, puppy, and kitten faces [73]; this is the behavioural anchor that the cuteness response is established well before adolescence. The interpretation implication is that Stoeckel measures identity-level pair-bonding and Borgi measures generic baby schema. HBN viewers have no identity-level bond with an animated puppy, so the relevant inference is from generic baby schema rather than pair-bonding circuitry.
-
-Two EEG routes connect these predictions to observables. The first is early occipital alpha-band desynchronisation (80 to 300 ms) as an arousal-modulated correlate of attentional engagement [70]. The second is later frontal alpha asymmetry (200 to 500 ms; extrapolated downward from the seconds-to-minutes Davidson tradition) as an approach-withdrawal index [74,75]. An updated meta-analytic critique documents smaller effect sizes and substantial reliability concerns [76]. The corpus contains no card applying asymmetry analysis to per-event sub-second windows during a continuous naturalistic stimulus, and none in a developmental cohort viewing film. Frontal asymmetry at shot-onset latency is therefore exploratory rather than confirmatory. The third emotion beat is social cognition. Richardson and colleagues documented ToM and pain networks present from age three and refining with age, using Pixar shorts in 122 children [12]; this is the load-bearing developmental anchor. Mar synthesised narrative comprehension as a social-cognitive activity [64]; Singer and colleagues documented affective pain-region engagement during observed pain [77]; Zaki and Ochsner formalised the tripartite empathy model bridging experience sharing and mental-state attribution [78]. Nummenmaa and colleagues showed emotion intensity modulates ISC in midline cortex during film viewing [79]; Schmaelzle and Grall theorised ISC as audience captivation [Schmälzle2020TheCB]. Two predictions sit at incompatible latencies and topographies; an LLR-partialled per-shot generalised linear model (GLM) adjudicates between them.
-
-## 7. Synthesis: integration, falsifiability, and open questions
-
-### 7.1 Integration
-
-The four perspectives rank by depth of prior evidence. Psychophysics has the deepest precedent and the simplest operationalisation: partial LLR, optionally motion energy, before any condition claim. Action has the deepest specific oscillatory prediction (mu-band ERD over central rolandic clusters) but no animated-agent precedent in EEG. Language is structurally non-transferable for LM regressors but supplies cortical priors for silent narrative through its 5b sub-thread (medial prefrontal cortex, the temporo-parietal junction, the STS, the default-mode network). Emotion supplies two predictions: early occipital alpha desynchronisation [66,70] and later frontal-asymmetric alpha [74], with the cuteness response anchored developmentally by Borgi [73]. Distributed-multivariate-signature framing supports IC-cluster-level analyses over single-IC decoding [42,68]. Figure 4 displays the four predictions in tabular form.
-
-### 7.2 Anchor case
-
-External precedent: Petroni and colleagues recorded 64-channel EEG at 500 Hz from 114 viewers across ages 6 to 44 during passive viewing of six naturalistic videos including animated and live-action shorts [14]. They did not analyse shot-onset ERSP and did not factor stimulus-side regressors, but they demonstrated that scalp-EEG signal exists during developmental naturalistic viewing of short videos. They are the closest external existence proof that the measurement class is feasible in adjacent territory. Internal feasibility: a partly-validated developmental EEG pipeline on HBN-EEG R3 brings 184 subjects through Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS) import, 1 Hz high-pass filtering, conditional cleanline gated by Nyquist, `clean_rawdata` channel rejection, AMICA decomposition, ICLabel classification, dipole fitting, and `std_precomp` ERSP precomputation; the operating constraint is that the local working set is 100 Hz, with a 500 Hz validation pass on the full Amazon S3 R3 release scheduled after pipeline validation. The two anchor assertions are independent and not interchangeable.
-
-### 7.3 Falsifiability
-
-A topographic-and-band rejection region for the four-perspective ranking can be pre-registered before group analysis. A surviving central-rolandic mu-band cluster (electrodes C3, Cz, and C4; 8 to 13 Hz) confirms the action prediction. A surviving frontal-asymmetric alpha cluster (electrodes F3 and F4; 8 to 13 Hz) confirms the emotion prediction. A surviving cluster in left frontotemporal IC space, overlapping the Lipkin language-network atlas [54] used as a negative-control mask, falsifies the four-perspective ranking by relocating the surviving signal into a perspective the thesis says should not transfer. A null result on the LLR-partialled GLM at a pre-registered cluster-level alpha (p < 0.05 corrected by mass-univariate cluster-based permutation, with the mTRF toolbox precedent [32]) also falsifies the four-perspective ranking, by localising per-shot ERSP variance entirely to bottom-up features in this cohort. Pinning the rejection region before data analysis is the publication discipline that constrains analyst degrees of freedom.
-
-### 7.4 Open questions and limitations
-
-Narrative position is a within-stimulus confound. Boy-only and puppy-only shots in *The Present* differ on three-act position: boy-only clusters in the early-act setup, puppy-only in the late-act resolution. Any boy-vs-puppy ERSP difference may therefore be confounded with prediction-error or arousal trajectories. The response is to add shot-index-in-narrative as a continuous covariate in the group GLM and to fit a within-act stratified analysis as a named follow-up [11,42,43]; both are tractable from the existing shot-event annotation. Beyond narrative position, several gaps in the corpus limit what this Review can claim. The Hickok-style mu-system critique is not represented in our cards, which weakens the action prediction. Klin and colleagues showed that toddlers with autism orient to audiovisual contingency rather than upright biological motion [80] and that adolescents with autism fixate eyes 50 percent as often during emotionally evocative viewing [81]; the HBN cohort includes a substantial autism-spectrum subsample, so autism status is a candidate moderator, but stratified analyses (autism-spectrum, attention, social skill) are exploratory follow-ups rather than primary tests. The emotion literature is predominantly adult; the three pet-evoked affective cards are fMRI or behavioural, not EEG. Frontal asymmetry at sub-second timescales is unprecedented and reliability-limited. The single-stimulus design forbids generalisation beyond *The Present*. The 100 Hz local working set caps beta-band and gamma-band claims until the 500 Hz validation pass. The Outstanding Questions Box collects the forward-looking adjudication targets.
-
-## Box 1: HBN-EEG Release 3 as the anchor cohort
-
-The Healthy Brain Network EEG (HBN-EEG) Release 3 cohort recruits 5- to 21-year-old participants in a research-grade developmental setting and records 128-channel HydroCel Geodesic Sensor Net during passive viewing of the 3.5-minute Pixar short *The Present* (2014). The local working set used in our pipeline development is 184 subjects at 100 Hz biosignal data format (BDF), a Nyquist-aware downsample of the original 500 Hz. The 56 stimulus-side shots carry per-shot `onset`, `duration`, `LLR`, `has_boy`, and `has_puppy` annotations; after invalidating 3 high-drift rows (`match_diff_s > 1.0 s`), 49 rows are trusted, yielding 20 boy-only and 15 puppy-only shots for the mutually exclusive single-agent contrast. The pipeline runs BIDS import, 1 Hz high-pass filter, conditional cleanline (gated by Nyquist), `clean_rawdata` channel rejection, AMICA, ICLabel (brain threshold 0.69), dipfit5, and `std_precomp` ERSP. The anchor case rests on Petroni and colleagues 2018 [14] as the external precedent and this partly-validated pipeline as the internal feasibility proof.
-
-## Trends Box: recent developments enabling the per-shot framing
-
-Recent advances make the per-shot framing newly tractable.
-
-- **Whole-brain shot-cut response in adult intracranial EEG.** Nentwich and colleagues 2023 recorded 6328 contacts in 23 patients across 43.6 minutes of film clips and regressed responses against optical-flow magnitude, saccade onsets, and film-cut onsets simultaneously, finding whole-brain saccade- and cut-locked responses with motion concentrated in occipitoparietal cortex [7].
-- **Hidden Markov model recovery of event states from fMRI.** Baldassano and colleagues 2017 recovered a hierarchy of event boundaries from Sherlock-movie fMRI, with hippocampal boundary signals predicting subsequent free recall [11].
-- **Cross-sectional developmental EEG-ISC.** Petroni and colleagues 2018 reported whole-clip EEG-ISC reliability across ages 6 to 44 during passive viewing of six naturalistic videos, peaking in childhood [14].
-- **Silent abstract animation for MRI compliance.** Vanderwal and colleagues 2015 built Inscapes, used by HBN itself, with reliable network-level activity [13].
-- **Multi-level cinematic-feature regression.** Kauttonen and colleagues 2015 regressed multi-level cinematic features against fMRI ISC, supplying a methodological template for shot-level feature annotation [82].
-- **Open developmental EEG releases.** HBN-EEG and Studyforrest [58] make large-N developmental datasets available for naturalistic-stimulus analysis at unprecedented scale.
-
-## Outstanding Questions Box
-
-1. Does per-shot EEG spectral perturbation in a developmental cohort viewing silent animation survive partialling for log luminance ratio and motion energy at the 0 to 500 ms window?
-2. Is mu-band ERD over central rolandic clusters elicited by animated-character action observation, as it is by hand-action observation in adults?
-3. Does cuteness-driven affective response in children produce a sub-second EEG signature distinguishable from generic arousal in the alpha band, and is the signature compatible with frontal asymmetry at sub-second timescales given the meta-analytic reliability concerns?
-4. Can a topographic-and-band rejection region for the four-perspective ranking be pre-registered before group analysis, and is the central-rolandic-versus-frontal-asymmetric-versus-language-network discrimination operationalisable from EEG IC clusters?
-5. Can a multimodal vision-language embedding regressor substitute for language-model surprisal on silent stimuli?
-6. Does within-stimulus narrative position (three-act trajectory) explain condition-level effects that survive low-level partialling in single-stimulus designs, and how should shot-index-in-narrative be operationalised as a regressor?
-7. What is the residual saccade-locked variance contamination in shot-onset EEG ERSP without a synchronous eye tracker, and at what cohort size does ICA-only artifact rejection become sufficient?
-
-## Glossary
-
-**Event-related spectral perturbation (ERSP).** A time-frequency representation of the change in spectral power (and optionally inter-trial phase coherence) at each frequency and latency relative to an event, computed by averaging single-trial power spectrograms after subtracting a baseline window.
-
-**Inter-subject correlation (ISC).** The Pearson correlation between time courses of different participants viewing the same stimulus, computed voxel-wise (fMRI) or component-wise (EEG and MEG); a stimulus-locked reliability metric.
-
-**Log luminance ratio (LLR).** The base-10 logarithm of the ratio of mean luminance in the first post-shot frame to the mean luminance in the last pre-shot frame; a per-shot stimulus-side regressor of the visual transient at shot onset.
-
-**Adaptive mixture independent component analysis (AMICA).** A multi-model extension of ICA that estimates a mixture of ICA decompositions, used in EEGLAB-style pipelines for artifact-resistant source separation.
-
-**IC classification (ICLabel).** An automated classifier that labels independent components as brain, muscle, eye, heart, line noise, channel noise, or other.
-
-**Mu rhythm.** An 8 to 13 Hz oscillation over central rolandic electrodes (C3, Cz, C4) that desynchronises during motor execution and during observation of others' actions.
-
-**Event-related desynchronisation (ERD).** A decrease in spectral power in a specific frequency band time-locked to an event, interpreted as cortical activation in the band's reference resting state.
-
-**Frontal alpha asymmetry.** The difference between right and left frontal alpha-band (8 to 13 Hz) power, traditionally framed as an approach-withdrawal index; recent meta-analyses report smaller effects and reliability concerns.
-
-**Default-mode network (DMN).** A set of cortical regions including medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, and lateral parietal cortex that show coordinated activity during internally directed cognition, narrative comprehension, and rest.
-
-**Theory of mind (ToM).** The cognitive capacity to attribute mental states (beliefs, desires, intentions) to self and others.
-
-**Temporal response function (TRF).** A linear filter that maps a continuous stimulus feature to a continuous neural response, fit via regularised regression.
-
-**Baby schema.** A set of infantile physical features (large head, large eyes, round cheeks) that elicit attentional, affective, and caregiving responses.
-
-**Naturalistic stimulus.** A continuous, ecologically valid stimulus (typically a film, audiobook, or video game) presented without trial-by-trial structuring. Naturalness is a continuum from controlled gratings to live-action film, with character animation and abstract Heider-Simmel triangles as intermediate points (Figure 2).
-
-**Event segmentation.** The cognitive process of parsing continuous experience into discrete events at moments of high prediction error, organised hierarchically.
-
-**Temporal receptive window.** The span of preceding time over which a brain region integrates information; ranges from milliseconds in primary sensory cortex to tens of seconds in default-mode regions.
-
-## Figure legends
-
-**Figure 1. Four-perspective strand map.** Four research perspectives (psychophysics, action, language, emotion) mapped against 15 corpus themes. Filled coloured circles indicate substantial contribution from the perspective to the theme; outlined circles indicate absence or peripheral relevance. The four columns are colour-coded by perspective and the legend doubles as a colour key. Theme overlap is intentional: the perspectives interact at the per-shot ERSP level rather than partitioning variance cleanly.
-
-**Figure 2. Naturalness gradient and developmental cohort coverage.** Stimulus naturalness on the x-axis (controlled gratings, static photographs, Heider-Simmel triangles, abstract animation, character animation, live-action film) versus participant cohort on the y-axis (adult, adolescent, child). Markers are sized by number of corpus cards and shaped and coloured by modality (fMRI as circle, EEG as square, MEG as triangle, intracranial EEG as diamond; behavioural-only entries as the letter b). The dashed yellow rectangle at (child, character animation) marks the target cell for per-shot EEG ERSP at the 0 to 500 ms window: existing coverage is whole-clip ISC, not per-shot ERSP.
-
-**Figure 3. Gap matrix.** Eight named gaps from the four-strand corpus (rows) versus four prior-effort axes (cinematic fMRI, naturalistic scalp EEG, intracranial and MEG, behavioural and eye-tracking; columns). Filled cells list a representative card slug; cells marked "no coverage" with a vermillion dashed border indicate uncovered combinations. Thirteen cells across the eight rows carry no coverage, defining the design space for per-shot developmental EEG ERSP.
-
-**Figure 4. Predictions and falsification regions, per perspective.** Each perspective (row) is named with its predicted topography (with a head schematic showing the topographic focus), band, latency, and pre-registered falsification region. Psychophysics is the covariate, not the prediction. Action predicts central-rolandic mu-band (8 to 13 Hz) ERD over electrodes C3, Cz, and C4, with possible beta rebound (15 to 25 Hz). Language predicts no signal locally; a surviving cluster in left-frontotemporal IC space (Lipkin atlas negative-control mask) falsifies the four-perspective ranking. Emotion predicts early occipital alpha desynchronisation (80 to 300 ms) and later frontal F3/F4 asymmetry (200 to 500 ms), at incompatible latencies and topographies. The cluster-level alpha for falsification is p < 0.05 corrected by mass-univariate permutation.
-
-## References
-
-The numbered reference list is in `references.md` (82 cited entries, ordered by first appearance in the body). Underlying BibTeX is in `refs.bib` (94 entries; the 12 uncited entries are kept for the supplementary materials and not numbered here). Cell Press house style applied at compile time.
-
-Note on the alpha-band and emotion citation: reference 70 cites Codispoti and colleagues (2023), Psychophysiology, DOI 10.1111/psyp.14438. The internal corpus slug `schubring-schupp-2023-alpha-emotion` is retained inside the research collection for cross-reference stability and does not appear in published prose.
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/outline.md b/manuscript/narrative-review/outline.md
deleted file mode 100644
index f80fadf..0000000
--- a/manuscript/narrative-review/outline.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,199 +0,0 @@
-# Narrative Review Outline (TiCS Forum Review)
-
-## Target
-
-**Journal**: *Trends in Cognitive Sciences* (Cell Press)
-**Article type**: Forum Review (the long-form review).
-**Working title**: "Per-shot EEG during naturalistic film: a four-perspective developmental review"
-**Backup titles**:
-- "Four perspectives on shot-locked EEG in silent character animation"
-- "Beyond language-model regressors: per-shot EEG of silent film in development"
-
-## Format constraints (Cell Press / TiCS)
-
-| Element | Target |
-|---|---|
-| Main text | ~3500-4000 words, excluding boxes, abstract, references, figure legends |
-| Abstract | ~100-120 words, no citations |
-| Highlights | 3-5 bullets, <= 85 characters each (Elsevier house style) |
-| Trends Box | "Key recent developments", 1 box, ~200-250 words |
-| Outstanding Questions Box | 5-7 forward-looking questions |
-| Glossary | 10-15 defined terms |
-| Figures | 4 (locked in epic plan) |
-| References | ~80-100, numbered, Cell Press style |
-| Boxes (optional content) | Up to 2 inline boxes for case studies (used here for Box 1: HBN-EEG R3 as the anchor cohort) |
-
-## Section budget
-
-| Section | Words | Cited cards (target) |
-|---|---|---|
-| Abstract | ~110 | 0 |
-| 1. Introduction: the per-shot turn | ~450 | ~12 |
-| 2. The four-perspective scaffold | ~600 | ~10 |
-| 3. Psychophysics: the bottom-up floor | ~500 | ~12 |
-| 4. Action: mu-band ERD and event segmentation | ~500 | ~12 |
-| 5. Language: non-transfer plus silent-narrative sub-thread (split per F-review I5) | ~600 | ~15 |
-| 6. Emotion: two predictions at different latencies | ~500 | ~14 |
-| 7. Synthesis: integration, falsifiability, open questions | ~450 | ~6 |
-| **Main-text total** | **~3610** | **~81** |
-| Trends Box | ~230 | 0 (inline) |
-| Outstanding Questions Box | n/a | 0 |
-| Box 1 (HBN-EEG R3 anchor) | ~180 | ~5 |
-| Glossary | ~600 (definitions, not counted in main) | 0 |
-| Figure legends | ~400 (not in main count) | 0 |
-
-Total main-text + Trends Box + Box 1 ~ 4020 words; comfortably inside the 4000-5000-word TiCS Forum Review window.
-
-## Section sketches
-
-### 1. Introduction — the per-shot turn (~450 words)
-
-- Open with two-wave history: fMRI ISC -> EEG ISC.
-- Frame the per-shot turn: iEEG cuts (Nentwich), event-segmentation HMM (Baldassano), hippocampal cut-vs-boundary (Ben-Yakov), Pixar shorts in development (Richardson-Saxe, Vanderwal, Petroni-Cohen).
-- State the central claim: per-shot EEG in development viewing silent animation is the empty cell where four perspectives diverge.
-- Preview the four perspectives.
-- One-paragraph statement of method footprint (LLR partialling, ICA-only artifact rejection, no eye tracker).
-- End with thesis sentence and a roadmap of the remaining sections.
-
-### 2. The four-perspective scaffold (~600 words)
-
-- One paragraph defending the scaffold as structural, not decorative (each perspective makes a different *kind* of prediction).
-- Brief tour of the 15 themes from the science-map (compressed; expanded in Box 1).
-- Forward-reference to Figure 1 (strand map).
-- Forward-reference to Figure 4 (predictions table).
-
-### 3. Psychophysics: the bottom-up floor (~500 words)
-
-- Adelson-Bergen + V1 + divisive normalisation + MT/MST anchors.
-- Nishimoto and Bartels: motion-energy alone reconstructs natural movies.
-- Nentwich iEEG: motion outranks luminance/contrast in occipitoparietal cortex.
-- VEP literature: LLR as the simplest scalp signature.
-- Implication: per-shot LLR is the minimum partialling for any social-content claim.
-- Eye-movement caveat: HBN has no synchronous eye tracker; ICA-only artifact rejection is the operating compromise.
-- Forward-reference to Figure 2 (naturalness gradient).
-
-### 4. Action: mu-band ERD and event segmentation (~500 words)
-
-- Hari, Pineda, Oberman mu-band lineage.
-- Saygin lesion + Johansson biological motion.
-- Kilner: predictive-coding reformulation of mirror system; Hickok-style critique acknowledged (F-review I3).
-- Event-segmentation theory: Zacks, Baldassano, Speer, Lerner.
-- Hippocampal dissociation between within-event cuts and across-event boundaries (Ben-Yakov).
-- Sliwa macaque two-agent network as motivation for single-agent vs two-agent contrast design.
-- Implication: mu-band ERD is the strongest specific oscillatory prediction in the corpus, but extrapolation from human-hand-action observation to animated agents is untested in EEG.
-
-### 5. Language: non-transfer plus silent-narrative sub-thread (~600 words)
-
-Following F-review I5, split into two clearly separated sub-sections:
-
-**5a. Language-model regressors are structurally non-transferable** (~250 words)
-- Goldstein, Caucheteux, Schrimpf, Antonello, Heilbron, Toneva: word-alignment-dependent.
-- Huth voxelwise semantic atlas: requires transcripts.
-- N400 family: bridges to picture-context, but at the cost of dynamic stimulus.
-- Apply F1 fix: "All seven Category-G language cards (12 corpus-wide) land at transfer-to-silent: no."
-- Vision-side analogue (multimodal VLM embeddings, scene-difference deep features) does not yet exist in the corpus for scalp-EEG ERSP.
-
-**5b. Silent-narrative neural correlates that do transfer** (~350 words)
-- Castelli Heider-Simmel; Castelli autism.
-- Vanderwal Inscapes (used by HBN itself).
-- Naci Hitchcock as covert assessment.
-- Lankinen silent-visual MEG ISC (the closest electrophysiological precedent with a deliberate silent-visual condition).
-- Schroeder cross-modal phase alignment to event onsets — mechanism for shot-onset ERSP independent of speech.
-- DMN narrative integration: Buckner, Simony, Yeshurun, Mar, Tamir.
-- Forward-reference to Figure 3 (gap matrix).
-
-### 6. Emotion: two predictions at different latencies (~500 words)
-
-- Early visual-cortex emotion-schema: Kragel EmoNet, Saarimaki, Lindquist, Cowen-Keltner.
-- Sub-second alpha desynchronisation: Schubring/Codispoti (apply F2 — verify and disambiguate authorship vs DOI).
-- Frontal asymmetry tradition: Davidson, Coan-Allen, Reznik-Allen critique.
-- Cuteness / baby-schema: Stoeckel (identity-level), Glocker (adult NAcc), Borgi (children 3-6).
-- Mar narrative as social cognition; Richardson-Saxe Pixar pediatric ToM.
-- Implication: two predictions, incompatible latencies and topographies; the LLR-partialled per-shot GLM adjudicates between them.
-
-### 7. Synthesis: integration, falsifiability, open questions (~450 words)
-
-- Apply F4: anchor case rebuilt around Petroni-Cohen 2018 (external precedent) + a class of partly-validated developmental EEG pipelines (internal feasibility). Drop the six-feature uniqueness list (move to Appendix or just to Box 1).
-- Apply F5: pre-registerable topographic-and-band falsification region — central-rolandic (action) or frontal-asymmetric (emotion) confirms; left-frontotemporal (Lipkin language atlas as negative control) falsifies; null at pre-registered alpha falsifies by exhaustion.
-- Apply I2: narrative-position objection (boy-only clusters in early-act setup; puppy-only in resolution); response is shot-index-in-narrative covariate + within-act stratified follow-up.
-- Apply I1: drop wishlist commitments; only firm scheduled extensions get named.
-- Close with the Outstanding Questions Box.
-
-## Figures (built in Phase 2)
-
-| Figure | Concept | Source |
-|---|---|---|
-| Fig 1 | Four-perspective strand map with theme overlap | `science-map.md`, four `*-ontology.md` |
-| Fig 2 | Naturalness gradient (gratings -> Heider-Simmel -> animation -> live-action) crossed with developmental cohort coverage | `science-map.md` Theme 3, `dataset-hierarchy.md` |
-| Fig 3 | Gap matrix: corpus features (cohort, modality, stimulus, regressor) x coverage | `gap-analysis.md`, `dataset-hierarchy.md` |
-| Fig 4 | Predictions table: perspective x band x topography x falsification region | Sections 3-6 of this manuscript |
-
-## Box 1: HBN-EEG R3 as the anchor cohort (~180 words)
-
-Inline box, not displayed prominently. Describes the 184-subject 100 Hz BDF working set, 56-shot annotated stimulus, 20 boy-only / 15 puppy-only contrast, and the LLR partialling decision. Cites Petroni-Cohen 2018 as the external precedent and the EEGLAB AMICA + ICLabel pipeline (no specific software version in the body; cited in Glossary).
-
-## Trends Box (~230 words)
-
-Lists the recent developments that make the per-shot framing newly tractable:
-
-- Whole-brain shot-cut response in adult iEEG (Nentwich 2023)
-- HMM-based event-state recovery from fMRI (Baldassano 2017)
-- Cross-sectional developmental EEG-ISC (Petroni 2018)
-- Inscapes-style silent animation for MRI compliance (Vanderwal 2015)
-- Multi-level cinematic-feature regression (Kauttonen 2015)
-- Open developmental EEG releases (HBN-EEG, Studyforrest)
-
-## Outstanding Questions Box (5-7 questions)
-
-Draft questions:
-
-1. Does per-shot EEG ERSP in a developmental cohort viewing silent animation survive partialling for log luminance ratio and motion energy at the 0-500 ms window?
-2. Is mu-band ERD over central rolandic clusters elicited by animated-character action observation, as it is by hand-action observation in adults?
-3. Does cuteness-driven affective response in children produce a sub-second EEG signature distinguishable from generic arousal in the alpha band?
-4. What is the falsifiable topographic-and-band rejection region for the four-perspective ranking, and can it be pre-registered before group analysis?
-5. Can a vision-side multimodal embedding regressor substitute for the language-model-surprisal regressor framework on silent stimuli?
-6. Does the within-stimulus narrative position (three-act trajectory) explain condition-level effects that survive low-level partialling?
-7. What is the residual saccade-locked variance contamination in shot-onset ERSP without a synchronous eye tracker, and at what scale does it affect inferences?
-
-## Glossary terms (target 10-15)
-
-- event-related spectral perturbation (ERSP)
-- inter-subject correlation (ISC)
-- log luminance ratio (LLR)
-- adaptive mixture independent component analysis (AMICA)
-- independent component classification (ICLabel)
-- mu rhythm
-- event-related desynchronisation (ERD)
-- frontal alpha asymmetry
-- default-mode network (DMN)
-- theory of mind (ToM)
-- temporal response function (TRF)
-- baby schema
-- naturalistic stimulus
-- event segmentation
-- temporal receptive window
-
-## Reference policy
-
-- Source: combine `research/collection/{psychophysics,action,language,emotion}/*.bib` into `manuscript/narrative-review/refs.bib`.
-- Apply F2: verify DOI 10.1111/psyp.14438 authorship; reconcile `schubring-schupp-2023-alpha-emotion` cite-card slug with `Codispoti2023AlphabandOA` BibTeX entry. Choose the canonical authorship and align slug + body citation.
-- Apply F3: remove uncited stray keys `Pessoa2010EmotionPA`, `Lerner2011TopographicMO`, `Chen2016SharedMR`, `Nelson2017NeurophysiologicalDO`. Sample 5-10 additional BibTeX keys against body citations to catch other strays.
-- Numbering: Cell Press numbered citations in body; combine bib at compile time in Phase 5.
-
-## Critical-finding mapping (F-review carry-forward)
-
-| Self-review finding | Disposition in this scaffold | Phase enforced |
-|---|---|---|
-| F1 (Category-G cardinality 12 -> 7 with 12 corpus-wide) | Phrasing locked in Section 5a outline | Phase 3 draft |
-| F2 (Schubring/Codispoti DOI) | refs.bib step verifies authorship | Phase 1 (this phase) |
-| F3 (stray refs) | refs.bib step removes 4 known stray keys + samples for more | Phase 1 (this phase) |
-| F4 (anchor case circular) | Anchor case rebuilt in Section 7 + Box 1 around Petroni + feasibility class | Phase 3 draft |
-| F5 (falsifiability asymmetric) | Topographic-and-band rejection region named in Section 7 | Phase 3 draft |
-| I1 (wishlist commitments) | Outline drops the soft commitments; only firm scheduled extensions appear | Phase 3 draft |
-| I2 (narrative-position objection) | Added to Section 7 synthesis | Phase 3 draft |
-| I3 (mu-system critique) | Section 4 names the critique tradition explicitly; weight on mu prediction tempered | Phase 3 draft |
-| I4 (themes section cohesion) | Section 2 written with explicit bridge sentence to thesis | Phase 3 draft |
-| I5 (language framing) | Section 5 split into 5a (non-transfer) + 5b (silent-narrative positive) | Phase 3 draft (outline already split) |
-| S1 (event-state regressor) | Outstanding Questions Box only; not promised in main text | Phase 3 draft |
-| S2 (ThePresent token) | Use *The Present* italicised throughout | Phase 3 draft |
-| S3-S4 (sentence length, phrasing) | Copy-edit in Phase 4 | Phase 4 |
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/references.md b/manuscript/narrative-review/references.md
deleted file mode 100644
index b502111..0000000
--- a/manuscript/narrative-review/references.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,86 +0,0 @@
-# References
-
-Numbered reference list for `manuscript.md`. 82 entries, ordered by first appearance in the body. Cell Press house style approximation.
-
-1. Hasson et al. (2004). Intersubject Synchronization of Cortical Activity During Natural Vision. *Science* 303, 1634 - 1640.
-2. Dmochowski et al. (2012). Correlated Components of Ongoing EEG Point to Emotionally Laden Attention – A Possible Marker of Engagement?. *Frontiers in Human Neuroscience*. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00112
-3. Ki et al. (2016). Attention Strongly Modulates Reliability of Neural Responses to Naturalistic Narrative Stimuli. *The Journal of Neuroscience* 36, 3092 - 3101.
-4. Cohen and Parra (2016). Memorable Audiovisual Narratives Synchronize Sensory and Supramodal Neural Responses. *eNeuro* 3.
-5. Dmochowski et al. (2014). Audience preferences are predicted by temporal reliability of neural processing. *Nature Communications* 5.
-6. Madsen and Parra (2022). Cognitive processing of a common stimulus synchronizes brains, hearts, and eyes. *PNAS Nexus* 1.
-7. Nentwich et al. (2023). Semantic novelty modulates neural responses to visual change across the human brain. *Nature Communications* 14.
-8. Ben-Yakov and Henson (2018). The Hippocampal Film Editor: Sensitivity and Specificity to Event Boundaries in Continuous Experience. *The Journal of Neuroscience* 38, 10057 - 10068.
-9. Zacks et al. (2007). Event perception: a mind-brain perspective. *Psychological Bulletin* 133, 273--293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.2.273
-10. Speer et al. (2007). Human brain activity time-locked to narrative event boundaries. *Psychological Science* 18, 449--455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01920.x
-11. Baldassano et al. (2017). Discovering event structure in continuous narrative perception and memory. *Neuron* 95, 709--721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2017.06.041
-12. Richardson et al. (2018). Development of the social brain from age three to twelve years. *Nature Communications* 9.
-13. Vanderwal et al. (2015). Inscapes: A movie paradigm to improve compliance in functional magnetic resonance imaging. *NeuroImage* 122, 222-32.
-14. Petroni et al. (2018). The Variability of Neural Responses to Naturalistic Videos Change with Age and Sex. *eNeuro* 5.
-15. Lankinen et al. (2014). Intersubject consistency of cortical MEG signals during movie viewing. *NeuroImage* 92, 217-24.
-16. Adelson and Bergen (1985). Spatiotemporal energy models for the perception of motion.. *Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science* 2 2, 284-99.
-17. Carandini and Heeger (2011). Normalization as a canonical neural computation. *Nature Reviews Neuroscience* 13, 51-62.
-18. Nishimoto et al. (2011). Reconstructing visual experiences from brain activity evoked by natural movies.. *Current biology : CB* 21 19, 1641-6.
-19. Hari et al. (1998). Activation of human primary motor cortex during action observation: a neuromagnetic study. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 95, 15061--15065. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.25.15061
-20. Pineda (2005). The functional significance of mu rhythms: translating "seeing" and "hearing" into "doing". *Brain Research Reviews* 50, 57--68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2005.04.005
-21. Goldstein et al. (2022). Shared computational principles for language processing in humans and deep language models. *Nature Neuroscience* 25, 369 - 380.
-22. Caucheteux and King (2022). Brains and algorithms partially converge in natural language processing. *Communications Biology* 5.
-23. Hubel and Wiesel (1962). Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex. *The Journal of Physiology* 160.
-24. Bell and Sejnowski (1997). The `independent components''of natural scenes are edge filters. *Neural Information Processing Systems*.
-25. Simoncelli and Olshausen (2001). Natural image statistics and neural representation.. *Annual review of neuroscience* 24, 1193-216.
-26. Born and Bradley (2005). Structure and function of visual area MT.. *Annual review of neuroscience* 28, 157-89.
-27. Bartels et al. (2008). Natural vision reveals regional specialization to local motion and to contrast-invariant, global flow in the human brain.. *Cerebral cortex* 18 3, 705-17.
-28. Tobimatsu and Celesia (2006). Studies of human visual pathophysiology with visual evoked potentials.. *Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology* 117 7, 1414-33.
-29. Kaneshiro et al. (2021). Inter-Subject EEG Correlation Reflects Time-Varying Engagement with Natural Music. *bioRxiv*.
-30. Dimigen and Ehinger (2021). Regression-based analysis of combined EEG and eye-tracking data: Theory and applications. *Journal of Vision* 21.
-31. Dorr et al. (2010). Variability of eye movements when viewing dynamic natural scenes.. *Journal of vision* 10 10, 28.
-32. Crosse et al. (2016). The Multivariate Temporal Response Function (mTRF) Toolbox: A MATLAB Toolbox for Relating Neural Signals to Continuous Stimuli. *Frontiers in Human Neuroscience* 10.
-33. Oberman et al. (2007). The human mirror neuron system: a link between action observation and social skills. *Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience* 2, 62--66. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsl022
-34. Saygin (2007). Superior temporal and premotor brain areas necessary for biological motion perception. *Brain* 130, 2452--2461. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awm162
-35. Johansson (1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. *Perception \& Psychophysics* 14, 201--211. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212378
-36. Kilner et al. (2007). Predictive coding: an account of the mirror neuron system. *Cognitive Processing* 8, 159--166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-007-0170-2
-37. Rizzolatti and Craighero (2004). The mirror-neuron system. *Annual Review of Neuroscience* 27, 169--192. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230
-38. Iacoboni (2009). Imitation, empathy, and mirror neurons. *Annual Review of Psychology* 60, 653--670. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163604
-39. Castelli et al. (2000). Movement and mind: a functional imaging study of perception and interpretation of complex intentional movement patterns. *NeuroImage* 12, 314--325. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2000.0612
-40. Hasson et al. (2010). Reliability of cortical activity during natural stimulation. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences* 14, 40--48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.10.011
-41. Lerner et al. (2011). Topographic mapping of a hierarchy of temporal receptive windows using a narrated story. *Journal of Neuroscience* 31, 2906--2915. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3684-10.2011
-42. Chen et al. (2017). Shared memories reveal shared structure in neural activity across individuals. *Nature Neuroscience* 20, 115--125. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4450
-43. Magliano and Zacks (2011). The Impact of Continuity Editing in Narrative Film on Event Segmentation. *Cognitive science* 35 8, 1489-517.
-44. Sliwa and Freiwald (2017). A dedicated network for social interaction processing in the primate brain. *Science* 356, 745--749. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam6383
-45. Heilbron et al. (2020). A hierarchy of linguistic predictions during natural language comprehension. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America* 119.
-46. Caucheteux et al. (2023). Evidence of a predictive coding hierarchy in the human brain listening to speech. *Nature Human Behaviour* 7, 430 - 441.
-47. Antonello et al. (2023). Scaling laws for language encoding models in fMRI. *Advances in neural information processing systems* 36, 21895-21907.
-48. Schrimpf et al. (2021). The neural architecture of language: Integrative modeling converges on predictive processing. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2105646118
-49. Toneva and Wehbe (2019). Interpreting and improving natural-language processing (in machines) with natural language-processing (in the brain). *arXiv (Cornell University)*. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1905.11833
-50. Huth et al. (2016). Natural speech reveals the semantic maps that tile human cerebral cortex. *Nature* 532, 453 - 458.
-51. Nelson et al. (2017). Neurophysiological dynamics of phrase-structure building during sentence processing. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 114, E3669 - E3678.
-52. Kutas and Federmeier (2011). Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP).. *Annual review of psychology* 62, 621-47.
-53. DeLong et al. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. *Nature Neuroscience* 8, 1117-1121.
-54. Lipkin et al. (2022). Probabilistic atlas for the language network based on precision fMRI data from >800 individuals. *Scientific Data* 9.
-55. Castelli et al. (2000). Movement and mind: a functional imaging study of perception and interpretation of complex intentional movement patterns.. *NeuroImage* 12 3, 314-25.
-56. Castelli et al. (2002). Autism, Asperger syndrome and brain mechanisms for the attribution of mental states to animated shapes.. *Brain : a journal of neurology* 125 Pt 8, 1839-49.
-57. Naci et al. (2014). A common neural code for similar conscious experiences in different individuals. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 111, 14277 - 14282.
-58. Hanke et al. (2014). A high-resolution 7-Tesla fMRI dataset from complex natural stimulation with an audio movie. *Scientific Data* 1.
-59. Schroeder and Lakatos (2009). Low-frequency neuronal oscillations as instruments of sensory selection.. *Trends in neurosciences* 32 1, 9-18.
-60. Senkowski et al. (2008). Crossmodal binding through neural coherence: implications for multisensory processing.. *Trends in neurosciences* 31 8, 401-9.
-61. Buckner et al. (2008). The Brain's Default Network. *Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences* 1124.
-62. Simony et al. (2016). Dynamic reconfiguration of the default mode network during narrative comprehension. *Nature Communications* 7.
-63. Yeshurun et al. (2017). Same Story, Different Story. *Psychological Science* 28, 307 - 319.
-64. Mar (2011). The neural bases of social cognition and story comprehension.. *Annual review of psychology* 62, 103-34.
-65. Tamir et al. (2016). Reading fiction and reading minds: the role of simulation in the default network.. *Social cognitive and affective neuroscience* 11 2, 215-24.
-66. Kragel et al. (2018). Emotion schemas are embedded in the human visual system. *Science Advances* 5.
-67. Cowen and Keltner (2017). Self-report captures 27 distinct categories of emotion bridged by continuous gradients. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 114, E7900 - E7909.
-68. Lindquist et al. (2012). The brain basis of emotion: A meta-analytic review. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences* 35, 121 - 143.
-69. Wager et al. (2013). An fMRI-based neurologic signature of physical pain.. *The New England journal of medicine* 368 15, 1388-97.
-70. Codispoti et al. (2023). Alpha-band oscillations and emotion: A review of studies on picture perception.. *Psychophysiology*, e14438.
-71. Stoeckel et al. (2014). Patterns of Brain Activation when Mothers View Their Own Child and Dog: An fMRI Study. *PLoS ONE* 9.
-72. Glocker et al. (2009). Baby schema modulates the brain reward system in nulliparous women. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 106, 9115 - 9119.
-73. Borgi et al. (2014). Baby schema in human and animal faces induces cuteness perception and gaze allocation in children. *Frontiers in Psychology* 5.
-74. Davidson (2000). Affective style, psychopathology, and resilience: brain mechanisms and plasticity.. *The American psychologist* 55 11, 1196-214.
-75. Coan and Allen (2004). Frontal EEG asymmetry as a moderator and mediator of emotion.. *Biological psychology* 67 1-2, 7-49.
-76. Reznik and Allen (2018). Frontal asymmetry as a mediator and moderator of emotion: An updated review.. *Psychophysiology* 55 1.
-77. Singer et al. (2004). Empathy for Pain Involves the Affective but not Sensory Components of Pain. *Science* 303, 1157 - 1162.
-78. Zaki and Ochsner (2012). The neuroscience of empathy: progress, pitfalls and promise. *Nature Neuroscience* 15, 675-680.
-79. Nummenmaa et al. (2012). Emotions promote social interaction by synchronizing brain activity across individuals. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 109, 9599 - 9604.
-80. Klin et al. (2009). Two-year-olds with autism orient to nonsocial contingencies rather than biological motion. *Nature* 459, 257--261. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07868
-81. Klin et al. (2002). Visual fixation patterns during viewing of naturalistic social situations as predictors of social competence in individuals with autism. *Archives of General Psychiatry* 59, 809--816. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.59.9.809
-82. Kauttonen et al. (2015). Optimizing methods for linking cinematic features to fMRI data. *NeuroImage* 110, 136-48.
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/refs.bib b/manuscript/narrative-review/refs.bib
deleted file mode 100644
index f6e7415..0000000
--- a/manuscript/narrative-review/refs.bib
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,1100 +0,0 @@
-% Consolidated reference list for the TiCS narrative review.
-%
-% Sources: research/collection/{psychophysics,action,language,emotion}/*.bib
-% Total entries: 94 (97 unique after de-duplication minus 3 F3 stray keys).
-%
-% F2 resolution (Schubring vs Codispoti): The card with slug
-% `schubring-schupp-2023-alpha-emotion` cites DOI 10.1111/psyp.14438. The
-% canonical authorship at that DOI is Codispoti, De Cesarei, and Ferrari
-% (2023), "Alpha-band oscillations and emotion: A review of studies on
-% picture perception," Psychophysiology. The BibTeX key here is
-% `Codispoti2023AlphabandOA`. Body prose must cite "Codispoti and colleagues
-% (2023)" rather than "Schubring and colleagues". The slug is retained
-% inside the research corpus only for stable internal cross-references; it
-% does not appear in published prose.
-%
-% F3 resolution: Removed stray keys not cited via any card link in the body:
-% - Pessoa2010EmotionPA
-% - Lerner2011TopographicMO
-% - Chen2016SharedMR
-% Kept Nelson2017NeurophysiologicalDO because the language section cites
-% Nelson 2017 directly under the corrected attribution (not "Brennan").
-
-@Inproceedings{Bell1997TheC,
- author = {A. Bell and T. Sejnowski},
- booktitle = {Neural Information Processing Systems},
- title = {The `independent components''of natural scenes are edge filters},
- year = {1997}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Simoncelli2001NaturalIS,
- author = {Eero P. Simoncelli and B. Olshausen},
- booktitle = {Annual Review of Neuroscience},
- journal = {Annual review of neuroscience},
- pages = {
- 1193-216
- },
- title = {Natural image statistics and neural representation.},
- volume = {24},
- year = {2001}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Dorr2010VariabilityOE,
- author = {M. Dorr and T. Martinetz and K. Gegenfurtner and E. Barth},
- booktitle = {Journal of Vision},
- journal = {Journal of vision},
- pages = {
- 28
- },
- title = {Variability of eye movements when viewing dynamic natural scenes.},
- volume = {10 10},
- year = {2010}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Carandini2011NormalizationAA,
- author = {M. Carandini and D. Heeger},
- booktitle = {Nature Reviews Neuroscience},
- journal = {Nature Reviews Neuroscience},
- pages = {51-62},
- title = {Normalization as a canonical neural computation},
- volume = {13},
- year = {2011}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Tobimatsu2006StudiesOH,
- author = {S. Tobimatsu and G. Celesia},
- booktitle = {Clinical Neurophysiology},
- journal = {Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology},
- pages = {
- 1414-33
- },
- title = {Studies of human visual pathophysiology with visual evoked potentials.},
- volume = {117 7},
- year = {2006}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Born2005StructureAF,
- author = {R. Born and D. Bradley},
- booktitle = {Annual Review of Neuroscience},
- journal = {Annual review of neuroscience},
- pages = {
- 157-89
- },
- title = {Structure and function of visual area MT.},
- volume = {28},
- year = {2005}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Bartels2008NaturalVR,
- author = {Andreas Bartels and S. Zeki and N. Logothetis},
- booktitle = {Cerebral Cortex},
- journal = {Cerebral cortex},
- pages = {
- 705-17
- },
- title = {Natural vision reveals regional specialization to local motion and to contrast-invariant, global flow in the human brain.},
- volume = {18 3},
- year = {2008}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Hasson2004IntersubjectSO,
- author = {U. Hasson and Y. Nir and I. Levy and Galit Fuhrmann and R. Malach},
- booktitle = {Science},
- journal = {Science},
- pages = {1634 - 1640},
- title = {Intersubject Synchronization of Cortical Activity During Natural Vision},
- volume = {303},
- year = {2004}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Nishimoto2011ReconstructingVE,
- author = {Shinji Nishimoto and An T. Vu and Thomas Naselaris and Y. Benjamini and Bin Yu and J. Gallant},
- booktitle = {Current Biology},
- journal = {Current biology : CB},
- pages = {
- 1641-6
- },
- title = {Reconstructing visual experiences from brain activity evoked by natural movies.},
- volume = {21 19},
- year = {2011}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Adelson1985SpatiotemporalEM,
- author = {E. Adelson and J. Bergen},
- booktitle = {Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science},
- journal = {Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science},
- pages = {
- 284-99
- },
- title = {Spatiotemporal energy models for the perception of motion.},
- volume = {2 2},
- year = {1985}
-}
-
-
-
-@article{dmochowski2012correlated,
- title = {Correlated Components of Ongoing EEG Point to Emotionally Laden Attention – A Possible Marker of Engagement?},
- author = {Dmochowski, Jacek and Sajda, Paul and Dias, João Canossa and Parra, Lucas C.},
- journal = {Frontiers in Human Neuroscience},
- year = {2012},
- doi = {10.3389/fnhum.2012.00112},
- url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00112}
-}
-
-
-@Article{Lalor2010NeuralRT,
- author = {E. Lalor and John J. Foxe},
- booktitle = {European Journal of Neuroscience},
- journal = {European Journal of Neuroscience},
- title = {Neural responses to uninterrupted natural speech can be extracted with precise temporal resolution},
- volume = {31},
- year = {2010}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Ki2016AttentionSM,
- author = {Jason J. Ki and S. Kelly and L. Parra},
- booktitle = {Journal of Neuroscience},
- journal = {The Journal of Neuroscience},
- pages = {3092 - 3101},
- title = {Attention Strongly Modulates Reliability of Neural Responses to Naturalistic Narrative Stimuli},
- volume = {36},
- year = {2016}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Cohen2016MemorableAN,
- author = {Samantha S. Cohen and L. Parra},
- booktitle = {eNeuro},
- journal = {eNeuro},
- title = {Memorable Audiovisual Narratives Synchronize Sensory and Supramodal Neural Responses},
- volume = {3},
- year = {2016}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Madsen2022CognitivePO,
- author = {J. Madsen and L. Parra},
- booktitle = {PNAS Nexus},
- journal = {PNAS Nexus},
- title = {Cognitive processing of a common stimulus synchronizes brains, hearts, and eyes},
- volume = {1},
- year = {2022}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Crosse2016TheMT,
- author = {Michael J. Crosse and Giovanni M. Di Liberto and A. Bednar and E. Lalor},
- booktitle = {Frontiers in Human Neuroscience},
- journal = {Frontiers in Human Neuroscience},
- title = {The Multivariate Temporal Response Function (mTRF) Toolbox: A MATLAB Toolbox for Relating Neural Signals to Continuous Stimuli},
- volume = {10},
- year = {2016}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Dmochowski2014AudiencePA,
- author = {J. Dmochowski and Matthew A. Bezdek and B. Abelson and John S. Johnson and E. Schumacher and L. Parra},
- booktitle = {Nature Communications},
- journal = {Nature Communications},
- title = {Audience preferences are predicted by temporal reliability of neural processing},
- volume = {5},
- year = {2014}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Nentwich2023SemanticNM,
- author = {Maximilian Nentwich and M. Leszczyński and Brian E. Russ and Lukas Hirsch and Noah Markowitz and Kaustubh Sapru and C. Schroeder and A. Mehta and S. Bickel and L. Parra},
- booktitle = {bioRxiv},
- journal = {Nature Communications},
- title = {Semantic novelty modulates neural responses to visual change across the human brain},
- volume = {14},
- year = {2023}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Kaneshiro2021InterSubjectEC,
- author = {Blair Kaneshiro and Duc T. Nguyen and A. Norcia and J. Dmochowski and J. Berger},
- booktitle = {bioRxiv},
- journal = {bioRxiv},
- title = {Inter-Subject EEG Correlation Reflects Time-Varying Engagement with Natural Music},
- year = {2021}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Dimigen2011CoregistrationOE,
- author = {O. Dimigen and W. Sommer and A. Hohlfeld and A. Jacobs and Reinhold Kliegl},
- booktitle = {Journal of experimental psychology. General},
- journal = {Journal of experimental psychology. General},
- pages = {
- 552-72
- },
- title = {Coregistration of eye movements and EEG in natural reading: analyses and review.},
- volume = {140 4},
- year = {2011}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Plöchl2012CombiningEA,
- author = {Michael Plöchl and J. Ossandón and P. König},
- booktitle = {Frontiers in Human Neuroscience},
- journal = {Frontiers in Human Neuroscience},
- title = {Combining EEG and eye tracking: identification, characterization, and correction of eye movement artifacts in electroencephalographic data},
- volume = {6},
- year = {2012}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Dimigen2021RegressionbasedAO,
- author = {O. Dimigen and Benedikt V. Ehinger},
- booktitle = {Journal of Vision},
- journal = {Journal of Vision},
- title = {Regression-based analysis of combined EEG and eye-tracking data: Theory and applications},
- volume = {21},
- year = {2021}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Riesenhuber1999HierarchicalMO,
- author = {M. Riesenhuber and T. Poggio},
- booktitle = {Nature Neuroscience},
- journal = {Nature Neuroscience},
- pages = {1019-1025},
- title = {Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex},
- volume = {2},
- year = {1999}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Hubel1962ReceptiveFB,
- author = {D. Hubel and T. Wiesel},
- booktitle = {Journal of Physiology},
- journal = {The Journal of Physiology},
- title = {Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex},
- volume = {160},
- year = {1962}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Khaligh-Razavi2014DeepSB,
- author = {Seyed-Mahdi Khaligh-Razavi and N. Kriegeskorte},
- booktitle = {PLoS Comput. Biol.},
- journal = {PLoS Computational Biology},
- title = {Deep Supervised, but Not Unsupervised, Models May Explain IT Cortical Representation},
- volume = {10},
- year = {2014}
-}
-
-
-
-@article{kmmerer2016deepgaze,
- title = {DeepGaze II: Reading fixations from deep features trained on object recognition},
- author = {Kümmerer, Matthias and Wallis, Thomas S. A. and Bethge, Matthias},
- journal = {arXiv (Cornell University)},
- year = {2016},
- doi = {10.48550/arxiv.1610.01563},
- url = {https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1610.01563}
-}
-% Action strand bibliography for HBN ThePresent boy-shot vs puppy-shot ERSP review
-% Phase 2 collection, generated 2026-05-06
-
-@article{johansson1973biological,
- author = {Johansson, Gunnar},
- title = {Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis},
- journal = {Perception \& Psychophysics},
- volume = {14},
- pages = {201--211},
- year = {1973},
- doi = {10.3758/BF03212378}
-}
-
-@article{saygin2007sts,
- author = {Saygin, Ayse Pinar},
- title = {Superior temporal and premotor brain areas necessary for biological motion perception},
- journal = {Brain},
- volume = {130},
- number = {9},
- pages = {2452--2461},
- year = {2007},
- doi = {10.1093/brain/awm162}
-}
-
-@article{klin2009biological,
- author = {Klin, Ami and Lin, David J. and Gorrindo, Phillip and Ramsay, Gordon and Jones, Warren},
- title = {Two-year-olds with autism orient to nonsocial contingencies rather than biological motion},
- journal = {Nature},
- volume = {459},
- pages = {257--261},
- year = {2009},
- doi = {10.1038/nature07868}
-}
-
-@article{rizzolatti2004mirror,
- author = {Rizzolatti, Giacomo and Craighero, Laila},
- title = {The mirror-neuron system},
- journal = {Annual Review of Neuroscience},
- volume = {27},
- pages = {169--192},
- year = {2004},
- doi = {10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230}
-}
-
-@article{kilner2007predictive,
- author = {Kilner, James M. and Friston, Karl J. and Frith, Chris D.},
- title = {Predictive coding: an account of the mirror neuron system},
- journal = {Cognitive Processing},
- volume = {8},
- pages = {159--166},
- year = {2007},
- doi = {10.1007/s10339-007-0170-2}
-}
-
-@article{iacoboni2009mirror,
- author = {Iacoboni, Marco},
- title = {Imitation, empathy, and mirror neurons},
- journal = {Annual Review of Psychology},
- volume = {60},
- pages = {653--670},
- year = {2009},
- doi = {10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163604}
-}
-
-@article{zacks2007event,
- author = {Zacks, Jeffrey M. and Speer, Nicole K. and Swallow, Khena M. and Braver, Todd S. and Reynolds, Jeremy R.},
- title = {Event perception: a mind-brain perspective},
- journal = {Psychological Bulletin},
- volume = {133},
- number = {2},
- pages = {273--293},
- year = {2007},
- doi = {10.1037/0033-2909.133.2.273}
-}
-
-@article{speer2007narrative,
- author = {Speer, Nicole K. and Zacks, Jeffrey M. and Reynolds, Jeremy R.},
- title = {Human brain activity time-locked to narrative event boundaries},
- journal = {Psychological Science},
- volume = {18},
- number = {5},
- pages = {449--455},
- year = {2007},
- doi = {10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01920.x}
-}
-
-@article{baldassano2017event,
- author = {Baldassano, Christopher and Chen, Janice and Zadbood, Asieh and Pillow, Jonathan W. and Hasson, Uri and Norman, Kenneth A.},
- title = {Discovering event structure in continuous narrative perception and memory},
- journal = {Neuron},
- volume = {95},
- number = {3},
- pages = {709--721},
- year = {2017},
- doi = {10.1016/j.neuron.2017.06.041}
-}
-
-@article{pineda2005mu,
- author = {Pineda, Jaime A.},
- title = {The functional significance of mu rhythms: translating ``seeing'' and ``hearing'' into ``doing''},
- journal = {Brain Research Reviews},
- volume = {50},
- number = {1},
- pages = {57--68},
- year = {2005},
- doi = {10.1016/j.brainresrev.2005.04.005}
-}
-
-@article{hari1998action,
- author = {Hari, Riitta and Forss, Nina and Avikainen, Sari and Kirveskari, Erika and Salenius, Stephan and Rizzolatti, Giacomo},
- title = {Activation of human primary motor cortex during action observation: a neuromagnetic study},
- journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
- volume = {95},
- number = {25},
- pages = {15061--15065},
- year = {1998},
- doi = {10.1073/pnas.95.25.15061}
-}
-
-@article{oberman2007mirror,
- author = {Oberman, Lindsay M. and Pineda, Jaime A. and Ramachandran, Vilayanur S.},
- title = {The human mirror neuron system: a link between action observation and social skills},
- journal = {Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience},
- volume = {2},
- number = {1},
- pages = {62--66},
- year = {2007},
- doi = {10.1093/scan/nsl022}
-}
-
-@article{lerner2011temporal,
- author = {Lerner, Yulia and Honey, Christopher J. and Silbert, Lauren J. and Hasson, Uri},
- title = {Topographic mapping of a hierarchy of temporal receptive windows using a narrated story},
- journal = {Journal of Neuroscience},
- volume = {31},
- number = {8},
- pages = {2906--2915},
- year = {2011},
- doi = {10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3684-10.2011}
-}
-
-@article{sliwa2017macaque,
- author = {Sliwa, Julia and Freiwald, Winrich A.},
- title = {A dedicated network for social interaction processing in the primate brain},
- journal = {Science},
- volume = {356},
- number = {6339},
- pages = {745--749},
- year = {2017},
- doi = {10.1126/science.aam6383}
-}
-
-@article{chen2017shared,
- author = {Chen, Janice and Leong, Yuan Chang and Honey, Christopher J. and Yong, Cindy H. and Norman, Kenneth A. and Hasson, Uri},
- title = {Shared memories reveal shared structure in neural activity across individuals},
- journal = {Nature Neuroscience},
- volume = {20},
- number = {1},
- pages = {115--125},
- year = {2017},
- doi = {10.1038/nn.4450}
-}
-
-@article{castelli2000heider,
- author = {Castelli, Fulvia and Happe, Francesca and Frith, Uta and Frith, Chris},
- title = {Movement and mind: a functional imaging study of perception and interpretation of complex intentional movement patterns},
- journal = {NeuroImage},
- volume = {12},
- number = {3},
- pages = {314--325},
- year = {2000},
- doi = {10.1006/nimg.2000.0612}
-}
-
-@article{klin2002visual,
- author = {Klin, Ami and Jones, Warren and Schultz, Robert and Volkmar, Fred and Cohen, Donald},
- title = {Visual fixation patterns during viewing of naturalistic social situations as predictors of social competence in individuals with autism},
- journal = {Archives of General Psychiatry},
- volume = {59},
- number = {9},
- pages = {809--816},
- year = {2002},
- doi = {10.1001/archpsyc.59.9.809}
-}
-
-@article{hasson2010natural,
- author = {Hasson, Uri and Malach, Rafael and Heeger, David J.},
- title = {Reliability of cortical activity during natural stimulation},
- journal = {Trends in Cognitive Sciences},
- volume = {14},
- number = {1},
- pages = {40--48},
- year = {2010},
- doi = {10.1016/j.tics.2009.10.011}
-}
-% Language strand bibliography
-% Generated by Phase 2 collection agent (lit-review-phase2-collection).
-% Citation keys preserved as returned by opencite (Semantic Scholar / OpenAlex).
-
-@Article{Lankinen2014IntersubjectCO,
- author = {Kaisu Lankinen and Jukka Saari and R. Hari and M. Koskinen},
- booktitle = {NeuroImage},
- journal = {NeuroImage},
- pages = {
- 217-24
- },
- title = {Intersubject consistency of cortical MEG signals during movie viewing},
- volume = {92},
- year = {2014}
-}
-
-@Article{Huth2016NaturalSR,
- author = {Alexander G. Huth and Wendy A. de Heer and T. Griffiths and F. Theunissen and J. Gallant},
- booktitle = {Nature},
- journal = {Nature},
- pages = {453 - 458},
- title = {Natural speech reveals the semantic maps that tile human cerebral cortex},
- volume = {532},
- year = {2016}
-}
-
-@Article{Nelson2017NeurophysiologicalDO,
- author = {M. Nelson and Imen El Karoui and K. Giber and Xiaofang Yang and L. Cohen and H. Koopman and S. Cash and L. Naccache and J. Hale and Christophe Pallier and S. Dehaene},
- booktitle = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America},
- journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
- pages = {E3669 - E3678},
- title = {Neurophysiological dynamics of phrase-structure building during sentence processing},
- volume = {114},
- year = {2017}
-}
-
-@Article{DeLong2005ProbabilisticWP,
- author = {Katherine A. DeLong and T. Urbach and M. Kutas},
- booktitle = {Nature Neuroscience},
- journal = {Nature Neuroscience},
- pages = {1117-1121},
- title = {Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity},
- volume = {8},
- year = {2005}
-}
-
-@Article{Kutas2011ThirtyYA,
- author = {M. Kutas and Kara D. Federmeier},
- booktitle = {Annual Review of Psychology},
- journal = {Annual review of psychology},
- pages = {
- 621-47
- },
- title = {Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP).},
- volume = {62},
- year = {2011}
-}
-
-@Article{Heilbron2020AHO,
- author = {Micha Heilbron and Kristijan Armeni and J. Schoffelen and P. Hagoort and F. D. de Lange},
- booktitle = {bioRxiv},
- journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America},
- title = {A hierarchy of linguistic predictions during natural language comprehension},
- volume = {119},
- year = {2020}
-}
-
-@Article{Caucheteux2022BrainsAA,
- author = {Charlotte Caucheteux and J. King},
- booktitle = {Communications Biology},
- journal = {Communications Biology},
- title = {Brains and algorithms partially converge in natural language processing},
- volume = {5},
- year = {2022}
-}
-
-@Article{Goldstein2022SharedCP,
- author = {Ariel Goldstein and Zaid Zada and Eliav Buchnik and Mariano Schain and A. Price and Bobbi Aubrey and Samuel A. Nastase and Amir Feder and Dotan Emanuel and Alon Cohen and A. Jansen and H. Gazula and Gina Choe and Aditi Rao and Catherine Kim and Colton Casto and Lora Fanda and W. Doyle and D. Friedman and Patricia Dugan and Lucia Melloni and Roi Reichart and S. Devore and A. Flinker and Liat Hasenfratz and Omer Levy and Avinatan Hassidim and Michael Brenner and Yossi Matias and K. Norman and O. Devinsky and U. Hasson},
- booktitle = {Nature Neuroscience},
- journal = {Nature Neuroscience},
- pages = {369 - 380},
- title = {Shared computational principles for language processing in humans and deep language models},
- volume = {25},
- year = {2022}
-}
-
-@Article{Wassenhove2005VisualSS,
- author = {Virginie van Wassenhove and K. W. Grant and D. Poeppel},
- booktitle = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America},
- journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America},
- pages = {
- 1181-6
- },
- title = {Visual speech speeds up the neural processing of auditory speech.},
- volume = {102 4},
- year = {2005}
-}
-
-@Article{Senkowski2008CrossmodalBT,
- author = {D. Senkowski and T. Schneider and John J. Foxe and A. Engel},
- booktitle = {Trends in Neurosciences},
- journal = {Trends in neurosciences},
- pages = {
- 401-9
- },
- title = {Crossmodal binding through neural coherence: implications for multisensory processing.},
- volume = {31 8},
- year = {2008}
-}
-
-@Article{Schroeder2009LowfrequencyNO,
- author = {C. Schroeder and P. Lakatos},
- booktitle = {Trends in Neurosciences},
- journal = {Trends in neurosciences},
- pages = {
- 9-18
- },
- title = {Low-frequency neuronal oscillations as instruments of sensory selection.},
- volume = {32 1},
- year = {2009}
-}
-
-@Article{Magliano2011TheIO,
- author = {Joseph P. Magliano and Jeffrey M. Zacks},
- booktitle = {Cognitive Sciences},
- journal = {Cognitive science},
- pages = {
- 1489-517
- },
- title = {The Impact of Continuity Editing in Narrative Film on Event Segmentation},
- volume = {35 8},
- year = {2011}
-}
-
-@Article{Buckner2008TheBD,
- author = {R. Buckner and J. Andrews-Hanna and D. Schacter},
- booktitle = {Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences},
- journal = {Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences},
- title = {The Brain's Default Network},
- volume = {1124},
- year = {2008}
-}
-
-@Article{Simony2016DynamicRO,
- author = {E. Simony and C. Honey and Janice Chen and Olga Lositsky and Y. Yeshurun and A. Wiesel and U. Hasson},
- booktitle = {Nature Communications},
- journal = {Nature Communications},
- title = {Dynamic reconfiguration of the default mode network during narrative comprehension},
- volume = {7},
- year = {2016}
-}
-
-@Article{Yeshurun2017SameSD,
- author = {Y. Yeshurun and Stephen Swanson and E. Simony and Janice Chen and C. Lazaridi and C. Honey and U. Hasson},
- booktitle = {Psychology Science},
- journal = {Psychological Science},
- pages = {307 - 319},
- title = {Same Story, Different Story},
- volume = {28},
- year = {2017}
-}
-
-@Article{Lipkin2022ProbabilisticAF,
- author = {Benjamin Lipkin and Greta Tuckute and Josef Affourtit and Hannah Small and Zachary Mineroff and Hope H. Kean and Olessia Jouravlev and L. Rakocevic and Brianna Pritchett and Matthew Siegelman and Caitlyn Hoeflin and Alvince L. Pongos and I. Blank and Melissa Kline Struhl and Anna A. Ivanova and S. Shannon and Aalok Sathe and Malte Hoffmann and Alfonso Nieto-Castanon and E. Fedorenko},
- booktitle = {Scientific Data},
- journal = {Scientific Data},
- title = {Probabilistic atlas for the language network based on precision fMRI data from >800 individuals},
- volume = {9},
- year = {2022}
-}
-
-@Article{Castelli2000MovementAM,
- author = {F. Castelli and F. Happé and U. Frith and C. Frith},
- booktitle = {NeuroImage},
- journal = {NeuroImage},
- pages = {
- 314-25
- },
- title = {Movement and mind: a functional imaging study of perception and interpretation of complex intentional movement patterns.},
- volume = {12 3},
- year = {2000}
-}
-
-@Article{Castelli2002AutismAS,
- author = {F. Castelli and C. Frith and F. Happé and U. Frith},
- booktitle = {Brain : a journal of neurology},
- journal = {Brain : a journal of neurology},
- pages = {
- 1839-49
- },
- title = {Autism, Asperger syndrome and brain mechanisms for the attribution of mental states to animated shapes.},
- volume = {125 Pt 8},
- year = {2002}
-}
-
-@Article{Hanke2014AH7,
- author = {Michael Hanke and Florian J. Baumgartner and P. Ibe and F. Kaule and S. Pollmann and O. Speck and W. Zinke and J. Stadler},
- booktitle = {Scientific Data},
- journal = {Scientific Data},
- title = {A high-resolution 7-Tesla fMRI dataset from complex natural stimulation with an audio movie},
- volume = {1},
- year = {2014}
-}
-
-@Article{Naci2014ACN,
- author = {Lorina Naci and R. Cusack and Mimma Anello and A. Owen},
- booktitle = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America},
- journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
- pages = {14277 - 14282},
- title = {A common neural code for similar conscious experiences in different individuals},
- volume = {111},
- year = {2014}
-}
-
-@Article{Vanderwal2015InscapesAM,
- author = {Tamara Vanderwal and C. Kelly and J. Eilbott and L. Mayes and F. Castellanos},
- booktitle = {NeuroImage},
- journal = {NeuroImage},
- pages = {
- 222-32
- },
- title = {Inscapes: A movie paradigm to improve compliance in functional magnetic resonance imaging},
- volume = {122},
- year = {2015}
-}
-
-@Article{Ben-Yakov2018TheHF,
- author = {A. Ben-Yakov and R. Henson},
- booktitle = {Journal of Neuroscience},
- journal = {The Journal of Neuroscience},
- pages = {10057 - 10068},
- title = {The Hippocampal Film Editor: Sensitivity and Specificity to Event Boundaries in Continuous Experience},
- volume = {38},
- year = {2018}
-}
-
-@article{toneva2019interpreting,
- title = {Interpreting and improving natural-language processing (in machines) with natural language-processing (in the brain)},
- author = {Toneva, Mariya and Wehbe, Leila},
- journal = {arXiv (Cornell University)},
- year = {2019},
- doi = {10.48550/arxiv.1905.11833},
- url = {https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1905.11833}
-}
-
-@article{schrimpf2021the,
- title = {The neural architecture of language: Integrative modeling converges on predictive processing},
- author = {Schrimpf, Martin and Blank, Idan and Tuckute, Greta and Kauf, Carina and Hosseini, Eghbal A. and Kanwisher, Nancy and Tenenbaum, Joshua B. and Fedorenko, Evelina},
- journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
- year = {2021},
- doi = {10.1073/pnas.2105646118},
- url = {https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2105646118}
-}
-
-@Article{Antonello2023ScalingLF,
- author = {Richard J. Antonello and Aditya R. Vaidya and Alexander G. Huth},
- booktitle = {Neural Information Processing Systems},
- journal = {Advances in neural information processing systems},
- pages = {
- 21895-21907
- },
- title = {Scaling laws for language encoding models in fMRI},
- volume = {36},
- year = {2023}
-}
-
-@Article{Caucheteux2023EvidenceOA,
- author = {Charlotte Caucheteux and Alexandre Gramfort and J. King},
- booktitle = {Nature Human Behaviour},
- journal = {Nature Human Behaviour},
- pages = {430 - 441},
- title = {Evidence of a predictive coding hierarchy in the human brain listening to speech},
- volume = {7},
- year = {2023}
-}
-
-
-@Article{Saarimäki2016DiscreteNS,
- author = {Heini Saarimäki and Athanasios Gotsopoulos and I. Jääskeläinen and J. Lampinen and Patrik Vuilleumier and R. Hari and M. Sams and L. Nummenmaa},
- booktitle = {Cerebral Cortex},
- journal = {Cerebral cortex},
- pages = {
- 2563-2573
- },
- title = {Discrete Neural Signatures of Basic Emotions.},
- volume = {26 6},
- year = {2016}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Nummenmaa2012EmotionsPS,
- author = {L. Nummenmaa and E. Glerean and M. Viinikainen and I. Jääskeläinen and R. Hari and M. Sams},
- booktitle = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America},
- journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
- pages = {9599 - 9604},
- title = {Emotions promote social interaction by synchronizing brain activity across individuals},
- volume = {109},
- year = {2012}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Kragel2018EmotionSA,
- author = {P. Kragel and Marianne C. Reddan and K. LaBar and T. Wager},
- booktitle = {Science Advances},
- journal = {Science Advances},
- title = {Emotion schemas are embedded in the human visual system},
- volume = {5},
- year = {2018}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Cowen2017SelfreportC2,
- author = {Alan S. Cowen and D. Keltner},
- booktitle = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America},
- journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
- pages = {E7900 - E7909},
- title = {Self-report captures 27 distinct categories of emotion bridged by continuous gradients},
- volume = {114},
- year = {2017}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Saxe2003PeopleTA,
- author = {R. Saxe and Nancy Kanwisher and Nancy Kanwisher},
- booktitle = {NeuroImage},
- journal = {NeuroImage},
- pages = {
- 1835-42
- },
- title = {People thinking about thinking people. The role of the temporo-parietal junction in "theory of mind".},
- volume = {19 4},
- year = {2003}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Richardson2018DevelopmentOT,
- author = {H. Richardson and Grace Lisandrelli and Alexa Riobueno-Naylor and R. Saxe},
- booktitle = {Nature Communications},
- journal = {Nature Communications},
- title = {Development of the social brain from age three to twelve years},
- volume = {9},
- year = {2018}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Lindquist2012TheBB,
- author = {Kristen A. Lindquist and T. Wager and H. Kober and E. Bliss-Moreau and L. F. Barrett},
- booktitle = {Behavioral and Brain Sciences},
- journal = {Behavioral and Brain Sciences},
- pages = {121 - 143},
- title = {The brain basis of emotion: A meta-analytic review},
- volume = {35},
- year = {2012}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Sergerie2008TheRO,
- author = {Karine Sergerie and C. Chochol and J. Armony},
- booktitle = {Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews},
- journal = {Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews},
- pages = {
- 811-30
- },
- title = {The role of the amygdala in emotional processing: a quantitative meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies.},
- volume = {32 4},
- year = {2008}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Etkin2011EmotionalPI,
- author = {A. Etkin and T. Egner and R. Kalisch},
- booktitle = {Trends in Cognitive Sciences},
- journal = {Trends in cognitive sciences},
- pages = {
- 85-93
- },
- title = {Emotional processing in anterior cingulate and medial prefrontal cortex.},
- volume = {15 2},
- year = {2011}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Wager2013AnFN,
- author = {T. Wager and L. Atlas and M. Lindquist and M. Roy and Choong-Wan Woo and E. Kross},
- booktitle = {New England Journal of Medicine},
- journal = {The New England journal of medicine},
- pages = {
- 1388-97
- },
- title = {An fMRI-based neurologic signature of physical pain.},
- volume = {368 15},
- year = {2013}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Petroni2018TheVO,
- author = {A. Petroni and Samantha S. Cohen and Lei Ai and N. Langer and S. Henin and T. Vanderwal and M. Milham and L. Parra},
- booktitle = {eNeuro},
- journal = {eNeuro},
- title = {The Variability of Neural Responses to Naturalistic Videos Change with Age and Sex},
- volume = {5},
- year = {2018}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Schmälzle2020TheCB,
- author = {Ralf Schmälzle and Clare Grall},
- booktitle = {J. Media Psychol. Theor. Methods Appl.},
- journal = {J. Media Psychol. Theor. Methods Appl.},
- title = {The Coupled Brains of Captivated Audiences},
- volume = {32},
- year = {2020}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Kauttonen2015OptimizingMF,
- author = {Janne Kauttonen and Yevhen Hlushchuk and Pia Tikka},
- booktitle = {NeuroImage},
- journal = {NeuroImage},
- pages = {
- 136-48
- },
- title = {Optimizing methods for linking cinematic features to fMRI data},
- volume = {110},
- year = {2015}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Stoeckel2014PatternsOB,
- author = {L. Stoeckel and Lori S Palley and R. Gollub and Steven M. Niemi and A. E. Evins},
- booktitle = {PLoS ONE},
- journal = {PLoS ONE},
- title = {Patterns of Brain Activation when Mothers View Their Own Child and Dog: An fMRI Study},
- volume = {9},
- year = {2014}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Glocker2009BabySM,
- author = {Melanie L Glocker and D. Langleben and K. Ruparel and J. Loughead and J. Valdez and M. Griffin and N. Sachser and R. Gur},
- booktitle = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America},
- journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
- pages = {9115 - 9119},
- title = {Baby schema modulates the brain reward system in nulliparous women},
- volume = {106},
- year = {2009}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Borgi2014BabySI,
- author = {M. Borgi and Irene Cogliati-Dezza and Victoria L. Brelsford and K. Meints and F. Cirulli},
- booktitle = {Frontiers in Psychology},
- journal = {Frontiers in Psychology},
- title = {Baby schema in human and animal faces induces cuteness perception and gaze allocation in children},
- volume = {5},
- year = {2014}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Davidson2000AffectiveSP,
- author = {R. Davidson},
- booktitle = {American Psychologist},
- journal = {The American psychologist},
- pages = {
- 1196-214
- },
- title = {Affective style, psychopathology, and resilience: brain mechanisms and plasticity.},
- volume = {55 11},
- year = {2000}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Coan2004FrontalEA,
- author = {J. Coan and John J. B. Allen},
- booktitle = {Biological Psychology},
- journal = {Biological psychology},
- pages = {
- 7-49
- },
- title = {Frontal EEG asymmetry as a moderator and mediator of emotion.},
- volume = {67 1-2},
- year = {2004}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Reznik2018FrontalAA,
- author = {S. J. Reznik and John J. B. Allen},
- booktitle = {Psychophysiology},
- journal = {Psychophysiology},
- title = {Frontal asymmetry as a mediator and moderator of emotion: An updated review.},
- volume = {55 1},
- year = {2018}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Codispoti2023AlphabandOA,
- author = {Maurizio Codispoti and Andrea De Cesarei and V. Ferrari},
- booktitle = {Psychophysiology},
- journal = {Psychophysiology},
- pages = {
- e14438
- },
- title = {Alpha-band oscillations and emotion: A review of studies on picture perception.},
- year = {2023}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Mar2011TheNB,
- author = {R. Mar},
- booktitle = {Annual Review of Psychology},
- journal = {Annual review of psychology},
- pages = {
- 103-34
- },
- title = {The neural bases of social cognition and story comprehension.},
- volume = {62},
- year = {2011}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Tamir2016ReadingFA,
- author = {D. Tamir and A. Bricker and D. Dodell-Feder and Jason P. Mitchell},
- booktitle = {Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience},
- journal = {Social cognitive and affective neuroscience},
- pages = {
- 215-24
- },
- title = {Reading fiction and reading minds: the role of simulation in the default network.},
- volume = {11 2},
- year = {2016}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Singer2004EmpathyFP,
- author = {T. Singer and B. Seymour and J. O’Doherty and H. Kaube and R. Dolan and C. Frith},
- booktitle = {Science},
- journal = {Science},
- pages = {1157 - 1162},
- title = {Empathy for Pain Involves the Affective but not Sensory Components of Pain},
- volume = {303},
- year = {2004}
-}
-
-
-
-@Article{Zaki2012TheNO,
- author = {Jamil Zaki and K. Ochsner},
- booktitle = {Nature Neuroscience},
- journal = {Nature Neuroscience},
- pages = {675-680},
- title = {The neuroscience of empathy: progress, pitfalls and promise},
- volume = {15},
- year = {2012}
-}
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/reviews/humanizer-log.md b/manuscript/narrative-review/reviews/humanizer-log.md
deleted file mode 100644
index 9b3a87d..0000000
--- a/manuscript/narrative-review/reviews/humanizer-log.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-# Humanizer pass log
-
-**Skill:** `manuscript:humanizer` (research-skills marketplace, v0.5.0)
-**Date:** 2026-05-20
-**Phase:** 4 (paper-review + humanizer)
-
-## Detection summary
-
-Scanned the full manuscript (sections 1-7, Box 1, Trends Box, Outstanding Questions, Glossary, figure legends) for the 29 humanizer patterns. The manuscript already showed strong baseline humanizer discipline because the project style guide enforces several patterns upfront:
-
-| Pattern | Status | Notes |
-|---|---|---|
-| 14: em-dash overuse | clean | Project rule "no em-dashes"; grep for `—` and `--` returned no body matches |
-| 18: emojis | clean | Project rule "no emojis"; none present |
-| 17: title case headings | clean | Sentence-case throughout (matches Cell Press house style for body headings) |
-| 19: curly quotes | clean | Straight quotes only |
-| 7: AI vocabulary (delve, intricate, tapestry, underscore, pivotal, vital, crucial filler, showcase, boast) | clean | grep returned 0 matches in body; "robust" appears once in a scientific context (alpha desynchronisation as "robust correlate") and was kept |
-| 8: copula avoidance | clean | grep for "stands as / serves as / functions as / represents a" returned 0 body matches |
-| 23: filler phrases | clean | No "it is important to note", "in order to", "due to the fact that" |
-| 24: excessive hedging | clean | Single hedges in Discussion (legitimate); no stacked "could potentially possibly" |
-| 25: generic positive conclusions | clean | No "opens exciting new avenues" or "the future is bright" |
-| 20: collaborative artifacts | clean | No "I hope this helps" |
-| 22: sycophantic tone | clean | No "great question" patterns |
-
-Two minor patterns were detected and rewritten.
-
-## Patterns detected and fixes applied
-
-### Pattern 3 (superficial -ing endings) — minor instance in Section 5
-
-**Detected:** Section 5b closing paragraph had "Their independent-component-cluster analogues in EEG are the search regions the per-shot ERSP analysis targets" with the implicit -ing in "targets" pulling a verb-as-rhetorical-flourish.
-
-**Fix:** Tightened to "...are the search regions for the per-shot ERSP analysis", removing the verb-as-action framing.
-
-### Pattern 25 (anthropomorphic / soft assertions) — Section 7.4
-
-**Detected:** "The corpus is honest about what it cannot say." This is an anthropomorphic framing (corpora are not honest); softer than the rest of the section.
-
-**Fix:** Rewrote to "Several gaps in the corpus limit what this Review can claim." Direct, claim-bounded, and not anthropomorphic.
-
-### Pattern 11 light touch (synonym cycling) — Section 5
-
-**Detected:** "The language perspective therefore enters our review twice" uses "enters" as a quasi-metaphor that could read as filler.
-
-**Fix:** Rewrote to "The language perspective therefore plays two roles" plus "The 5a sub-thread isolates..." and "The 5b sub-thread supplies..." giving each sub-thread an explicit subject and verb.
-
-## Patterns explicitly preserved per research-writing calibration
-
-- Passive voice in methods-adjacent claims (Box 1 pipeline description): preserved.
-- Single hedges in Section 7.5 ("may", "suggests", "is consistent with"): kept.
-- Established compound modifiers ("event-related spectral perturbation", "log luminance ratio", "default-mode network"): hyphenation preserved per scientific style.
-- Selective bold in Trends Box bullet leads ("**Whole-brain shot-cut response in adult intracranial EEG.**"): preserved per pattern 15 calibration (selective bold for callout headers is fine).
-- Cite-card slug citations in `[KeyYYYY...]` form: preserved per task instructions; Cell Press numbered conversion happens in Phase 5.
-
-## Net effect on word count
-
-Before humanizer pass (after M1-M4 paper-review fixes):
-- Main text sections 1-7 total: 3255 words
-
-After humanizer pass:
-- Main text sections 1-7 total: 3249 words (six words trimmed via pattern 3 and pattern 25 fixes)
-
-## Carry-forward to Phase 5
-
-- Cell Press numbered reference conversion (Phase 5).
-- Final TiCS-specific formatting (Phase 5).
-- Font-size + DPI fixes on figures (Phase 5).
-- Stimulus thumbnails (Fig 2) + brain icons (Fig 4) via figures:transparent-icons (Phase 5b).
diff --git a/manuscript/narrative-review/reviews/internal-review.md b/manuscript/narrative-review/reviews/internal-review.md
deleted file mode 100644
index 23f0ad3..0000000
--- a/manuscript/narrative-review/reviews/internal-review.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,141 +0,0 @@
-# Internal peer review of `manuscript.md`
-
-**Reviewer:** internal pass via `manuscript:paper-review` (Phase 4 of epic #46).
-**Target:** *Trends in Cognitive Sciences* Forum Review.
-**Date:** 2026-05-20.
-
-## Synopsis
-
-This Forum Review argues that per-shot EEG event-related spectral perturbation (ERSP) in a developmental cohort viewing silent character animation is an empty cell at the intersection of four research traditions (psychophysics, action, language, emotion). The four-perspective scaffold makes the argument operationally tractable, naming a regressor of no interest (psychophysics), a band-and-topography prediction with adult precedent (action), a method that structurally cannot transfer plus a positive sub-thread (language), and two latency-distinct predictions (emotion). Section 7 names a topographic-and-band rejection region that a pre-registered group analysis can adopt before opening the data, anchored externally on Petroni-Cohen 2018 and internally on a partly-validated EEGLAB-style pipeline (Box 1). The corpus underlying the synthesis is 94 cite-card-backed references from a four-strand collection. Headline assessment: this is a publishable Forum Review draft. The four-perspective scaffold is coherent; F1-F5 carry-forwards from the prior self-review are addressed in prose; the falsifiability section is concretely operationalisable. The most consequential remaining issues are (1) a quantitative caption error in Figure 3, (2) Section 2 still reads more as a theme catalogue than an integrated argument, (3) Section 7 runs ~175 words over its budget while Sections 1-2 sit ~390 words under, and (4) the abstract omits the 100 Hz sampling-rate constraint which is a load-bearing methodological qualifier in the body.
-
-## Critical Issues
-
-None. There are no methodological flaws, invalid statistics, or unsupported claims that would block submission of this Review. Notes below are major or minor concerns.
-
-## Major Concerns
-
-### M1. Figure 3 caption count is wrong: 13 no-coverage cells, not 12
-
-**Where**: Figure 3 caption (line 178); referenced from Section 5b body and from the gap-matrix figure source SVG.
-
-**Issue**: The caption states "twelve cells across the eight rows show no coverage in at least one column". Counting the no-coverage cells in `fig3_gap-matrix.svg`: Gap 1 (1), Gap 2 (1), Gap 3 (2), Gap 4 (1), Gap 5 (1), Gap 6 (2), Gap 7 (2), Gap 8 (3) = **13**. A peer reviewer who counts the dashed rectangles will find the mismatch immediately. This is the same class of factual error that the prior self-review flagged as F1 (Category G cardinality 12 vs 7), so addressing it preserves the rigor-checklist discipline.
-
-**Fix**: Change "twelve" to "thirteen" in the Figure 3 caption. Verify against the SVG one more time before Phase 5.
-
-### M2. Section 2 still reads as a theme catalogue rather than an argument
-
-**Where**: Section 2 ("The four-perspective scaffold"), middle paragraph (line 49).
-
-**Issue**: The prior self-review flagged I4 (Section 2 breaks the narrative arc). The current draft adds the bridge sentence at the open and forward-reference at the close, both of which are improvements. The middle paragraph still enumerates 15 themes back-to-back with a perspective tag per theme, which reads as an inventory rather than an argument. The 334-word section also sits under its 600-word budget; there is headroom to develop the perspective interactions more substantively. Compared to Section 4 (action), where multiple "beats" structure the argument, Section 2 has no structural rhythm beyond the enumeration.
-
-**Fix**: Restructure the middle paragraph around the four perspectives, not the 15 themes. One paragraph per perspective summarising which themes carry the perspective's prediction, briefly. Or compress the theme enumeration to two sentences and use the freed budget to elaborate the four-perspective interaction (when do action and emotion compete, when do they reinforce, what is the relationship between language 5b and emotion social-cognition). Either path raises Section 2 from list to argument.
-
-### M3. Section 7 over-runs its budget by ~175 words while Sections 1-2 sit ~390 words under
-
-**Where**: Sections 1 (326 vs 450 target), 2 (334 vs 600 target), 7 (624 vs 450 target).
-
-**Issue**: The body-text rebalancing in the PR description ("Sections 1-2 are under target by ~390 words combined; Section 7 is over by ~175") is true to the budgets but reflects a deeper structural skew. Section 7 is doing five sub-jobs (integration, anchor case, falsifiability, narrative-position objection, open questions and limitations) inside one section, while Sections 1 and 2 are doing under what their budgets would support. A peer reviewer will notice that the synthesis is heavier than the introduction, which inverts the usual Forum Review weighting.
-
-**Fix**: Move Section 7.5 (open questions and limitations) content partly to Section 1 (limitations preview) and partly to the Outstanding Questions Box (where it already lives, redundantly). Move Section 7.4 (narrative-position objection) tightened to ~60 words inside 7.3 falsifiability, since it is in fact a falsification-region concern. Use the freed budget in Section 2 to do the perspective-interaction work flagged in M2.
-
-### M4. Abstract omits the 100 Hz constraint, which the body names as load-bearing
-
-**Where**: Abstract (lines 33-35).
-
-**Issue**: The abstract claims that per-shot ERSP in a developmental cohort has no published precedent and that HBN-EEG R3 sits at the empty intersection. The body (Section 7.5; Box 1) names the 100 Hz local working set as a constraint that caps beta-band and gamma-band claims until the 500 Hz validation pass. A peer reviewer reading only the abstract would not learn that the empirical follow-on test is sampling-rate-limited at the dev tier, which a TiCS abstract should disclose at the level of one clause.
-
-**Fix**: Add one clause to the abstract acknowledging the sampling-rate constraint: "...sits at this empty intersection, with the local 100 Hz working set capping beta-band claims until a 500 Hz validation pass." This makes the abstract honest at the abstract level. Word budget: the abstract is currently 125 words; this adds ~15 words, putting it ~10 words over its 110-120 target. Offset by tightening the sentence on "Most empirical evidence to date comes from...".
-
-## Minor Concerns
-
-### m1. Abstract is 125 words; TiCS target is ~80-120
-
-**Where**: Abstract (line 35).
-
-**Issue**: 125 words is 5 over the upper bound of the 110-120 target the scaffold set, and TiCS-published abstracts cluster at 80-120. Combined with M4 (add sampling-rate clause), aim for 110-120 net.
-
-**Fix**: Trim "in two waves" filler and "Most empirical evidence to date" to one phrase each. Drop "We review the four-strand corpus that constrains this design space" in favour of "We review the corpus".
-
-### m2. "stop-motion or stills" misnames Dorr 2010
-
-**Where**: Section 3, paragraph 3 (line 59).
-
-**Issue**: The sentence "Gaze coherence varies with stimulus class, highest on Hollywood trailers and lowest on stop-motion or stills" misrepresents Dorr and colleagues 2010, which compared Hollywood trailers, natural movie clips, and static images. Stop-motion is not a category in that study; stills is.
-
-**Fix**: Replace "stop-motion or stills" with "natural movie clips and static images".
-
-### m3. Section 4 paragraph 1 drops the Hickok critique in a single sentence
-
-**Where**: Section 4, paragraph 1 (line 63), last sentence.
-
-**Issue**: The Hickok-style mu-system critique is mentioned in a single half-sentence ("...not represented as cards in our corpus and which temper the weight that the action-perspective prediction can carry"). The prior self-review (I3) flagged this as a Phase 1 grounding gap: the corpus does not contain the strongest steelman objection to the deepest specific prediction. Treating the critique as a one-sentence hedge under-weights it.
-
-**Fix**: Either add a sentence elaborating the substance of the Hickok objection (mu suppression also reflects general attention to motion, not a one-to-one mirror-system signature) so the reader knows what the critique actually says, or commit to a follow-up paragraph in Section 7.5 (limitations) that explicitly names the corpus gap. The current treatment is honest but thin.
-
-### m4. "This Review" capitalisation is inconsistent with Cell Press house style
-
-**Where**: Section 1, last paragraph (line 43): "This Review argues that..."; Section 5b last paragraph (line 83): "The language perspective therefore enters our Review twice."
-
-**Issue**: Cell Press style typically uses lowercase "review" inside the article body and capitalises "Review" only when referring to the article type as a noun in metadata. The current capitalisation is inconsistent across sections.
-
-**Fix**: Lowercase throughout the body. Reserve "Review" capitalisation for the YAML frontmatter / article-type-designation context.
-
-### m5. Section 5b lacks a clear thesis sentence to mirror 5a
-
-**Where**: Section 5b (lines 81-83).
-
-**Issue**: Subsection 5a opens with "The contemporary methodological mainstream...", a clear thesis. Subsection 5b opens with "A second strand of language-strand cards documents what silent narrative engages independent of speech", which is descriptive rather than thesis-asserting. The 5a-vs-5b split is structurally valuable (per I5 carry-forward), but the asymmetry in opening rhetoric makes 5b read like a continuation rather than a counterpart.
-
-**Fix**: Open 5b with "Silent-narrative neural correlates do transfer to scalp-EEG ERSP analysis even when language-model regressors cannot." Then proceed with Castelli, Vanderwal, Naci, Lankinen, Schroeder, default-mode-network synthesis.
-
-### m6. Glossary entry "Naturalistic stimulus" risks being too narrow
-
-**Where**: Glossary (line 166).
-
-**Issue**: The definition reads "A continuous, ecologically valid stimulus (typically a film, audiobook, or video game) presented without trial-by-trial structuring." A TiCS reader from a non-cinematic-fMRI background may not understand why audiobooks and video games are listed alongside film. The naturalness-gradient framing of Section 3 and Figure 2 implies that the stimulus class is broader than examples given.
-
-**Fix**: Add one sentence to the glossary entry: "Naturalness is a continuum from controlled gratings to live-action film, with character animation and abstract Heider-Simmel triangles as intermediate points (Figure 2)."
-
-### m7. Outstanding Questions Box question 5 is dense
-
-**Where**: Outstanding Questions Box, question 5 (line 136).
-
-**Issue**: Question 5 ("Can a vision-side multimodal embedding regressor substitute for the language-model-surprisal regressor framework on silent stimuli, and what method bridges the syntactic and semantic granularity of the language-model framework into vision?") packs two distinct questions into one and asks the reader to track "vision-side multimodal embedding regressor" and "language-model-surprisal regressor framework" in the same sentence. The compound structure dilutes the question's force.
-
-**Fix**: Split into two questions or shorten to "Can a multimodal vision-language embedding regressor substitute for language-model surprisal on silent stimuli?" Drop the second clause; the bridging question is a follow-up rather than a forward-looking adjudication target.
-
-### m8. Section 4 paragraph 4 abruptly introduces the autism subsample
-
-**Where**: Section 4, last paragraph (line 69), starting "A third action beat concerns single-agent versus two-agent shots".
-
-**Issue**: This paragraph compresses three different topics: macaque two-agent network (Sliwa), single-agent contrast design rationale, and the autism-spectrum subsample of HBN. The autism topic appears here in two sentences without prior setup. It belongs either with Section 7.5 (limitations as moderator) or as its own short paragraph.
-
-**Fix**: Move the autism sentences to Section 7.5 limitations. Section 4 paragraph 4 then reads as a tight macaque-to-design-rationale argument.
-
-### m9. Figure 4 caption mentions "occipital alpha desynchronisation" without naming the latency window in the text
-
-**Where**: Figure 4 caption (line 180); Section 6 body (line 87).
-
-**Issue**: Figure 4 caption gives "80 to 300 ms (occipital)" and "200 to 500 ms (frontal)". Section 6 body does not give explicit latency windows. A reader inspecting the figure first and then the body will notice the latency-window precision in the figure that is absent in the body.
-
-**Fix**: Add the latency windows to Section 6 body: "early occipital alpha desynchronisation (80 to 300 ms post-shot-onset)" and "later frontal-asymmetric alpha (200 to 500 ms)". Citation precedent for the windows: the Codispoti review for occipital, and the Davidson tradition (seconds-to-minutes) extrapolated downward for frontal. The body should be explicit about the extrapolation since the frontal latency is not directly precedented.
-
-### m10. "ECoG" is introduced inside a parenthetical without being defined
-
-**Where**: Section 5a (line 75): "shared between word-by-word intracranial cortical recording (ECoG) and autoregressive LMs".
-
-**Issue**: ECoG (electrocorticography) is introduced as an apposition to "intracranial cortical recording" but the acronym is not actually defined here; the parenthetical reads as defining "intracranial cortical recording" with the acronym ECoG, but ECoG specifically means electrocorticography. A non-EEG reader (TiCS audience is cognitive-science-broad) may be confused.
-
-**Fix**: Either expand to "electrocorticography (ECoG)" or remove the acronym since it is used only once more (Section 5a, in the Schrimpf citation). Defining-on-first-use convention from the project style guide.
-
-## Editor Note
-
-Recommendation: minor revision (TiCS terminology). The four-perspective scaffold and the falsifiability operationalisation are publication-ready in argumentative substance. The remaining work is rebalancing (Sections 1, 2, 7 word counts), one factual caption error (M1), and polish (minor concerns). All flagged items are addressable in a single Phase 4 revision pass without restructuring the argument. The 5a/5b split (per prior self-review I5) is well-executed and the falsifiability rejection region (per prior self-review F5) is concrete enough to pre-register before group analysis.
-
-## Carry-forward to Phase 5
-
-- M1 (caption count): correct before Phase 5 assembly.
-- M2 (Section 2 restructure): apply in Phase 4 humanizer / copy-edit pass.
-- M3 (word-count rebalance): apply in Phase 4 copy-edit pass.
-- M4 (abstract sampling-rate clause): apply in Phase 4 copy-edit pass.
-- m1-m10: apply opportunistically in Phase 4 humanizer pass; verify in Phase 5 final assembly.