Trait-like visual cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety

Domain: neuroscience
Published: 2025-12-20
Editorial outcome: accept

Abstract
Sensory processing varies across individuals, with some traits—particularly sensory hypersensitivity to basic non-valenced stimuli—linked to emotional traits and psychiatric risk. Traditional accounts attribute this sensory–emotion linkage to limbic or prefrontal modulation, but empirical support is limited. Growing evidence suggests sensory cortex itself flexibly encodes value beyond labeled-line analysis. Across four high-density EEG experiments with multi-wave assessments, we identified reliable visual cortical hyperactivity in high trait anxiety. The effect emerged as early as 46 ms, localized to V1/V2, and was specific to the parvocellular pathway. It was reproducible across arousal states, stimulus valence, extended intervals, and paradigms, and evident for both simple (grating) and complex real-world images. Importantly, cortical excitation–inhibition balance (EEG aperiodic exponent/1/f slope) predicted parvocellular responses in low- but not high-anxiety individuals, implicating disrupted E/I modulation. Thus, trait anxiety alters early visual processing, aligning cortical computations with an individual’s intrinsic biological propensity from the outset.

Introduction
Sensory processing varies across individuals, often presenting as stable sensory traits that are also tied to emotional traits1,2. Among these, sensory hypersensitivity shows strong associations with anxiety-related traits, such as trait anxiety, behavioral inhibition, and neuroticism, as well as has been linked to clinical disorders1–5. Sensory hypersensitivity is particularly well-documented in schizophrenia6,7 and autism8. Recent research, including meta-analyses, indicated that sensory anomalies, especially sensory hypersensitivity, span a spectrum of psychiatric disorders, with anxiety disorders and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) especially implicated9–13.

Despite the above, we have limited insight into the precise nature of a link between sensory and emotional traits. Examination of its neural basis has focused predominantly on the limbic system, especially the amygdala and hippocampus, and, to a lesser extent, prefrontal regions14–16. This aligns with prevailing clinical models, which attribute sensory anomalies in psychiatric disorders to dysfunctions in prefrontal and limbic regions, driven by their aberrant reentrant projections to the sensory cortex17–19. However, empirical support for a limbic-prefrontal origin of sensory traits is sparse and inconclusive20. Paradoxically, despite its primary role in sensory processing, the sensory cortex has been largely overlooked in this research, rendering its role in this sensory-emotion linkage poorly understood.

A widespread assumption is that the sensory cortex maintains high fidelity to external stimuli, which implies consistent responses across individuals—unless modulated by higher-order prefrontal or limbic inputs. However, the notion of rigid sensory encoding conflicts with the evolutionary history of the sensory cortex: Phylogenetic evidence indicates that the sensory cortex evolved prior to the emergence of limbic and prefrontal structures, as observed in ancient organisms such as the ancestral amniote21,22. Absent these higher-order structures, sensory cortex likely evolved flexible encoding—dynamically shaped by internal states and the biological value of external stimuli—to support adaptive interactions with the environment. Recently, the idea that the sensory cortex encodes biological value, without higher-order neural input, and adjusts its responses accordingly, has gained traction23,24. Importantly, accruing evidence suggests that sensory cortical value encoding correlates with trait anxiety25,26 while sensory dysfunctions—such as sensory cortical hyperactivity and disinhibition—are implicated in disorders associated with high trait anxiety, including PTSD, schizophrenia, and autism6,10,23,27–30.

We hypothesized that sensory hypersensitivity in trait anxiety involves a significant, active contribution from the early sensory cortex. Mechanistically, the sensory cortex operates through well-organized local circuits with rich feedforward and feedback excitation and inhibition, where the excitation-inhibition (E/I) ratio regulates sensory cortical activation levels24,31. Indeed, E/I imbalance has been associated with psychiatric disorders, especially those involving significant sensory anomalies, such as schizophrenia and autism32. On this basis, we also hypothesized that disrupted E/I modulation in trait anxiety contributes to sensory cortical hyperactivity.

To test these hypotheses, we characterized trait-like sensory cortical hyperactivity and examined its association with trait anxiety through four high-density Electroencephalogram (hdEEG) experiments. To ascertain the reliability and generalizability of a sensory trait and its relation with trait anxiety, we included repeated assessments (up to three waves) and three independent subject samples. To address potential confounds, we implemented aversive conditioning between assessments (in Experiment 1) in order to evoke state anxiety and arousal and, in sodoing, tease out potential effects of state (vs. trait) anxiety in heightening sensory cortical processing33,34. Early visual cortical activity was assayed using visual evoked potentials (VEPs), an electrophysiological feature emerging from the early (primary and secondary) visual cortex, at approximately 50–120 ms post stimulus onset35,36. In generating characteristic VEPs, visual processing in the primate brain is mediated by distinct pathways, especially the parvo-(P) and magno-cellular (M) visual pathways35–37. These pathways serve specialized functions37 and are differentially implicated in psychiatric disorders6,38,39. To precisely delineate their contribution to sensory hyperactivity, we employed carefully calibrated M- and P-selective stimuli across all four experiments.

Results
Stable and trait-like visual cortical biases in trait anxiety
In Experiment 1, we applied two sets of stimuli known to selectively elicit M and P-pathway processing—M-pathway: achromatic, low-spatial-frequency, and low-contrast Gabor patches; P-pathway: chromatic (red/green), high-spatial-frequency, and individually-determined isoluminance Gabor patches37. Participants (N=52; mean age, 19.5 years; 22 men) performed a simple orientation discrimination task during high-density (HD; 96-channel) EEG recordings25 on Day 1 and Day 16 (Fig. 1).

To examine stable and trait-like sensory cortical biases, we administered the task at three distinct time points: Time 1: baseline; Time 2: after a standard aversive conditioning manipulation; and Time 3: Day 16 (15 days after conditioning). Consistency in response between Time 1 and Time 2 would support trait-like reliability that persists across different arousal and anxiety states, while consistency with Time 3 would attest to robust test-retest reliability. At all three time points, trials for the conditioned and non-conditioned stimuli (CS and non-CS) were pooled. Additionally, we also analyzed CS and non-CS trials separately, which yielded virtually identical results (see details in SOM and Table S1). Trait anxiety was assessed with the Behavioral Inhibition Scale (BIS)40, a neurobiologically motivated questionnaire with high reliability and high predictive validity for anxiety41,42. Importantly, the trait of behavioral inhibition is closely related to sensory sensitivity43.

As established in the literature35,36, the M- and the P-selective Gabor patches evoked a positive-going (P1) component and a negative-going (C1/N1) complex, respectively (Fig. 1B–D). These VEPs were extracted from the Oz site (collapsed across 3 midline electrodes), where they were maximally distributed, and were submitted to Pearson correlational analyses. We observed a positive correlation between C1/N1 magnitude (i.e., inverted amplitude to adjust for its negative polarity) and trait anxiety at all three time points (T1: r=0.37, p=0.011; T2: r=0.38, p=0.009; T3: r=0.37, p=0.026), suggesting parvocellular visual cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety. We also found a negative correlation between P1 amplitude and trait anxiety at all three time points (T1: r=-0.35, p=0.015; T2: r=-0.38, p=0.008; T3: r=-0.33, p=0.050), suggesting magnocellular visual cortical hypoactivity in trait anxiety. Finally, leveraging the hdEEG recordings, we also performed intracranial source-level analyses on the C1 and P1 components using exact low-resolution electromagnetic tomography (eLORETA)44, which confirmed their associations with trait anxiety in early visual cortex (V1/V2; see SOM and Fig. S2).

In addition, at all three time points, point-by-point analysis of the waveforms throughout the early visual processing stage (i.e., 0–200 ms post-stimulus) confirmed continuous intervals encompassing the P- and M-evoked VEPs (gray boxes in Fig. 1), where the above correlation was reliably significant after correction for multiple tests. Specifically, for the P-evoked waveforms, the continuous intervals were 86–175 ms; 86–171 ms; and 86–160 ms for Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3, respectively (see details in SOM). For the M-evoked waveforms, the continuous intervals were 72–200 ms, 42–200 ms, and 78–200 ms for Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3, respectively. Finally, using Hittner’s Monte Carlo evaluation method45, we compared the correlation across the three time points and observed no effects of time (p’s > 0.44; see details in SOM), indicating the reliability and robustness of this association across different arousal levels and across extended time. Thus, these findings are consistent with the presence of stable, trait-like, visual cortical biases in trait anxiety.

An opposing pattern of M- and P-biases in trait anxiety was not predicted. Intriguingly, there were strong negative correlations between the magnitudes of VEPs for the two respective pathways, r’s < –0.62, p’s < 0.001 (see SOM Fig. S1). These negative correlations rule out alternative accounts of general differences in neural responsivity or sensory reactivity across individuals (as they would predict positive correlations). In addition, the finding might indicate a reciprocity between parvo- and magno-cellular functioning within an individual. However, given that M- and P-selective trials were intermixed and presented in rapid succession, it is also possible that a repetition-suppression type of effect between the two pathways might drive this reciprocity. In addition, an alternative explanation for the parvocellular hyperactivity is that it reflects a restricted sensitivity for color processing. Based on these considerations and to adjudicate between the aforementioned explanations, we conducted Experiments 2 and 3.

Reproducible and stable association of trait anxiety with parvocellular visual cortical hyperactivity
Experiments 2 and 3 (order counterbalanced across subjects) were conducted in an independent subject sample (N=52; mean age, 20.0 years; 16 men). To minimize potential effects of repetition suppression between the two pathways, Experiment 2 presented the P- and M-selective Gabor patches in non-overlapping visual fields, thereby activating separate populations of retinal and visual cortical cells. Specifically, based on their relative sensitivity to foveal versus peripheral stimuli37, we presented P- and M-selective Gabor patches at center and periphery (at 10° eccentricity), respectively (Fig. 2A). Similar methods (e.g., EEG recordings and preprocessing, trait anxiety measurement, statistical analysis) as in Experiment 1 were applied here and in the other experiments unless otherwise stated.

The P-selective stimuli evoked a C1/N1 complex at Oz (Fig. 2B, bottom). The peripherally presented M-selective stimuli evoked a clear (albeit attenuated) P1 at the contralateral posterior sites (P7/P8; Fig. 2B, top). Importantly, we replicated a positive correlation between trait anxiety and C1 magnitude (r=0.33, p=0.018). In addition, source-level analysis in eLORETA further confirmed the association in early visual cortex (V1/V2; see SOM and Fig. S3, left). A point-by-point analysis in the 200-ms post-stimulus window confirmed a continuous interval (58–105 ms; encompassing the C1 potential) where the correlation was reliably significant after correction for multiple tests (see details in SOM). However, a negative correlation between trait anxiety and P1 evoked by M-selective stimuli observed in Experiment 1 was not replicated here (r=0.03, p=0.81), while point-by-point analysis in the 200 ms window failed to isolate any time points showing a correlation with trait anxiety (p > 0.10). These findings are again supportive of a selective association of trait anxiety with parvocellular visual cortical hyperactivity (but not with magnocellular activity).

Experiment 3 was designed to exclude the alternative explanation of a restricted sensitivity for color processing and to ascertain the retest reliability of this effect. Specifically, achromatic P-selective stimuli were used with high spatial frequency and high contrast retained to preferentially activate the parvocellular pathway (Fig. 2C). In support of the stimulus manipulation, these stimuli evoked a characteristic C1 potential (Fig. 2D). Importantly, the C1 again exhibited a positive correlation with trait anxiety (r=0.38, p=0.006). In addition, source-level analysis in eLORETA further confirmed an association within early visual cortex (V2; see SOM and Fig. S3, right). Similar to Experiment 1, a point-by-point analysis throughout the 200 ms post-stimulus window again revealed a continuous interval (46–94 ms; encompassing the C1 potential) where the correlation remained reliably significant after correction for multiple tests (see details in SOM). The M-selective stimuli were centrally presented and evoked a strong P1 potential at Oz. As in Experiment 2, we did not observe a significant correlation between trait anxiety and P1 (r=0.04, p=0.76) or any time point in the 200 ms window (p’s > 0.10). Finally, we found no difference in the correlation between the two experiments (p’s > 0.64), highlighting a consistency in association, despite changes in both visual properties and tasks. Together, the results of Experiments 2 and 3 confirm a reliable and replicable parvocellular visual cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety, while failing to support the presence of a magnocellular hypoactivity in trait anxiety (see SOM for Bayesian Factors in support of the null finding).

Disrupted E-I modulation of parvocellular visual cortical activity in trait anxiety
As discussed above, sensory cortical functioning is regulated by cortical E/I balance, and disruptions in this balance (i.e., E/I imbalance) are implicated in various psychiatric disorders, especially those involving significant sensory anomalies. Thus, we hypothesized that disrupted E/I modulation in high trait anxiety serves as a mechanism underlying its associated sensory cortical hyperactivity. To test this, we recorded resting-state EEG among participants in Experiments 2 and 3 and extracted an index of E/I balance—the aperiodic exponent (1/f slope)—from the EEG power spectrum (3–50 Hz). Converging evidence, variously derived from computational modeling, intracranial recordings, and EEG data, suggests that the 1/f slope is sensitive to excitatory and inhibitory interplay at the level of the synapse, as well as GABAergic pharmacological modulation46–50. Importantly, the 1/f slope closely tracks E/I ratios: flatter slopes reflect higher E/I ratios (greater excitation), steeper slopes lower E/I ratios (greater inhibition)49,51.

Therefore, we submitted C1 magnitudes from both Experiments 2 and 3 into a mixed-effects regression model with trait anxiety, experiment, aperiodic 1/f slope, and their interaction entered as regressors. In support of our hypothesis, we observed a significant interaction between the 1/f slope and trait anxiety in predicting C1 magnitude (coefficient=0.46, SE=0.20, p < 0.05). To further probe this interaction, we performed a median split based on trait anxiety level and applied a mixed-effects regression model on the 1/f slope and C1 magnitudes in the high- and low-anxiety groups separately (Fig. 2E, F). In the low-anxiety group, we confirmed a negative association between C1 magnitude and 1/f slope (p=0.04 one-tailed), suggesting that, in low anxiety, stronger parvocellular visual cortical response is linked to higher E/I ratios (Fig. 2E). Our eLORETA source-level analyses on the C1 component further localized this association between C1 magnitude and E/I ratio to early (primary and secondary) visual cortex (V1/V2; peak x=–10, y=–75, z=–10, r=–0.53, k=100; FDR p < 0.05; Fig. 2E). By contrast, in the high-anxiety group, no significant association between 1/f slope and C1 magnitude emerged from either the surface- (p=0.12 one-tailed; and potentially trending in the opposite direction) or source-level analyses (Fig. 2F). Together, results here suggest that E/I modulation of the visual cortex was somewhat compromised in high trait anxiety, potentially resulting in visual cortical hyperactivity among such individuals.

Ecological validity: parvocellular visual cortical hyperactivity to real-world images in trait anxiety
The above experiments used basic laboratory stimuli and, arguably, do not address ecological validity and real-world relevance of the observed association. A more general question is whether trait-anxious individuals exhibit visual cortical hyperactivity while navigating their natural environment. To address this, we examined visual cortical responses to natural scene images in association with trait anxiety. Specifically, we analyzed data from a prior study (N=46; 19.3 years; 22 men) using images conveying complex natural scenes52. Critically, the images were filtered to contain high or low spatial frequency (HSF/LSF) that selectively activate the parvocellular or magnocellular pathway, respectively (Fig. 3A). Of note, these images were carefully calibrated to ensure that P- and M-selective images were comparable in luminance, contrast, wavelength energy, and visual complexity (edge density, entropy, compressed image size)52. Finally, the images contained neutral, disgust, and fear emotions, allowing us to also examine the effect of emotion on the observed association.

Both HSF and LSF stimuli evoked a P1 component. Amplitude of the P1 evoked by P-selective (HSF) images again correlated positively with trait anxiety (r=0.38, p=0.017), replicating the above findings with Gabor patches (Fig. 3B). In addition, source-level analysis in eLORETA further confirmed an association within early visual cortex (V1/V2; see SOM and Fig. S4). Moreover, a point-by-point analysis of the 200 ms post-stimulus window again highlighted a continuous interval (101–140 ms; encompassing the P1 potential) wherein the correlation was reliably significant after correction for multiple tests (see details in SOM). By contrast, the amplitude of the P1 evoked by M-selective (LSF) images did not correlate with trait anxiety (r=0.15, p=0.35), while a point-by-point analysis also failed to identify any time points showing a significant correlation (p’s > 0.12). Finally, consistent with findings from Experiment 1, we found no effect of emotion on the correlation for both P- and M-selective images (P-selective: p’s > 0.89; M-selective: p’s > 0.54), and the correlation coefficients were highly comparable across the three emotional categories (P-selective: r=0.36–0.37; M-selective: r=0.08–0.21). Thus, these results again confirmed an association between trait anxiety and parvocellular visual cortical hyperactivity, while validating the ecological validity of this association.

To ensure rigor and robustness of the findings, we further submitted the six p-values from the six correlational tests between trait anxiety and P-selective VEPs, across Experiments 1–4, to Benjamin-Hochberg correction for multiple comparisons. All six remained significant at the adjusted thresholds (see SOM).

Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual cortical hyperactivity in women and men
There is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety53, potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical multiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for details), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between trait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-selective VEPs, with Study Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the first step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we replicated the significant anxiety effect (sr=0.35, p < 0.001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety interaction (sr=–0.03, p=0.762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr=–0.02, p=0.864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr=–0.004, p=0.960).

We also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both groups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr=0.36/0.35; p=0.001/0.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety and M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr=–0.03/–0.01; p=0.760/0.948). Notably, a simple t-test on BIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to males (18.68 ± 4.08), t = 2.23, p=0.027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety53 and suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we found no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of sex.

Methods
Experiment 1
Participants. As part of a larger study previously reported in ref. 82, we conducted an EEG experiment of visual discrimination and aversive conditioning consisting of three recording sessions separated by 15 (±3.6) days. A total of fifty-two individuals (19.5 ± 1.4 years; 22 men) participated in the first two sessions that took place on Day 1, and forty-two returned to participate in the third session on Day 16. Five and six participants were excluded from analysis for Day 1 and Day 16, respectively, due to excessive eye movements, severe EEG artifacts and technical problems, resulting in final samples of 47 and 36 for Day 1 and Day 16 VEP analyses, respectively. All participants were right-handed with normal or corrected-to-normal vision and denied a history of severe head injury, psychological/neurological disorders or current use of psychotropic medication. All participants provided informed consent to participate in this study, which was approved by the University of Wisconsin Institutional Review Board. Participants received course credits or monetary compensation. Sample size was determined based on a medium effect size typically associated with trait anxiety, e.g., its correlations with behavioral and neural measures, as reported in both meta-analyses83 and our previous research54,84,85. Specifically, assuming a medium effect size (r=0.35), a sample size of 46 is required to achieve 80% power.

Trait anxiety assessment. At the beginning of the first session, participants completed the BIS, a 7-item self-report measure (rated on a Likert scale of 1–4), assessing trait anxiety or the strength of the behavioral inhibition system40,54,84,85. This scale is neurobiologically motivated with high reliability and strong predictive validity of anxiety41,42 and recommended by the National Institute of Mental Health for assessing trait anxiety. Importantly, the trait of behavioral inhibition is found to be especially related to sensory sensitivity43.

Stimuli. Two types of Gabor patches (sinusoidal gratings multiplied by a Gaussian envelope; 9°×9° in visual angles) were generated with specific visual properties that preferentially stimulate the magnocellular (M) and parvocellular (P) pathways, respectively. M-selective Gabor patches were of low spatial frequency (LSF; 0.67 cycles per degree/cpd), low luminance contrast (6.9% Michelson contrast), and achromatic. The lightest point of the Gabor patch was 23.14 cd/m2, and the darkest point was 20.16 cd/m2. P-selective Gabor patches were of high spatial frequency (HSF; 4 cpd) and chromatic (red-green isoluminant). By making the P-selective stimuli isoluminant, we would maximally inhibit the magnocellular activation evoked by the onset of these stimuli.

Individual red-green isoluminant points were experimentally determined by heterochromatic flicker photometry86, with gray, red, or green squares alternatingly presented on a CRT monitor at a frequency of 30 Hz. With the luminance of the gray square fixed at 21.65 cd/m2 (the same as the background luminance of the experimental tasks), participants first adjusted the intensity of the red gun, via button pressing, until minimal flicker was perceived between the alternating gray and the red squares. With the luminance of the red square set, participants then adjusted the intensity of the green gun until minimal flicker was observed between the alternating red and green squares. After three repetitions, mean red and green values were computed for each participant to generate individualized red-green isoluminant chromatic Gabor patches.

Throughout the experiment, visual stimuli were presented on the same gray background on a CRT monitor, which was calibrated by first fitting a gamma function for each RGB channel based on sampled luminance values of each channel measured by a photometer, and then applying a reverse-gamma function on each RGB channel to achieve uniform steps of luminance increase using the Psychophysics Toolbox87. Stimulus presentation was linked to the refresh rate (60 Hz) of the CRT monitor and delivered using Cogent 2000 software (Wellcome Dept., London, UK) as implemented in Matlab (Mathworks, Natick, MA). Synchronization between stimulus display and data acquisition was verified using a photodiode placed at the center of the monitor screen.

Experiment procedure. The experiment consisted of four main phases: pre-conditioning (Time 1), conditioning, Day 1 post-conditioning (Time 2), and Day 16 post-conditioning (Time 3). Participants were seated ~60 cm from a CRT monitor in a dimly lit, electrically shielded room, and performed heterochromatic flicker photometry to determine their individual red-green isoluminant values, which were used to generate P-selective Gabor patches.

During conditioning, M- and P-selective CS were presented in two separate blocks, with block order counterbalanced. Within each conditioning block, 20 trials (10 for CS+, 10 for CS–) were presented. For 70% of the trials that were reinforced, a CS Gabor patch was centrally presented for 3000 ms, followed by simultaneous delivery of a UCS image for 2000 ms (fearful for CS+, neutral for CS–) and UCS sound for 1500 ms (fearful scream for CS+, pure tone for CS–). For the remaining 30% of trials, no UCS was presented following the CS. Before, immediately after, and 15 days after conditioning, participants performed an orientation discrimination task (see below).

For both M- and P-selective Gabor patches, two orientations were selected and differentially conditioned as CS+ and CS- via pairing with either aversive unconditioned stimuli (UCS) or neutral stimuli, respectively. To avoid orientation-specific effects, we employed two sets of Gabor patches (33° and 57° or 123° and 147° clockwise from the vertical meridian), which were counterbalanced across participants. The assignment of CS+ orientation within each set was further counterbalanced. Aversive and neutral UCS consisted of the simultaneous presentation of images and sounds. Fearful and neutral images were selected from the International Affective Picture Set (IAPS88) and internet sources, depicting threatening scenes (e.g., knife put to throat; gun pointed to head) and household artifacts (e.g., whistle, cabinet), respectively. Fearful sounds (i.e., screams) were obtained from the fear subset of human affective vocalizations89. Neutral sounds consisted of pure tones of various frequencies.

Orientation discrimination task (ODT). The orientation discrimination task (ODT) required participants to detect orientation differences between two serially presented Gabor patches. Each trial began with a centrally presented fixation cross with a jittered duration of 1600-1900 ms. The 1st Gabor patch appeared for 400 ms, followed by a visual mask of 100 ms, before the 2nd Gabor patch appeared for 400 ms, followed by another visual mask of 100 ms. The 1st Gabor patch was always a CS (CS+ or CS-), while the 2nd Gabor patch was either the same or different in orientation compared to the 1st Gabor patch. “Same” or “Different” trials were presented with equal probability. On “Different” trials, a Gabor patch 12° apart from both CS+ and CS- orientations (45° or 135°), was presented. Participants were required to make a speeded judgment to indicate whether the two serially presented Gabor patches were of same or different orientations. A total of 360 trials were randomly presented across three mini-blocks, with 90 trials for each experimental condition (i.e., M/P-selective CS+/CS-). In the current analysis, we pooled the CS+ and CS- trials, yielding 180 trials each for M- and P-selective Gabor patches.

EEG recording and analysis. EEG data were continuously recorded during all four phases of the experiment from a 96-channel (BioSemi ActiveTwo) system at a 1024 Hz sampling rate. Electrooculogram (EOG) was recorded at two eye electrodes at the outer canthi of each eye and one infraorbital to the left eye. EEG data were down-sampled to 256 Hz, digital bandpass filtered from 0.1 to 40 Hz, and then referenced to the average of all 96 channels. EEG artifact detection and removal were achieved by the Fully Automated Statistical Thresholding for EEG artifact Rejection (FASTER) algorithm implemented in EEGLAB 2021.190. FASTER first interpolates deviant channels from the continuous data using the EEGLAB spherical spline interpolation function. Data were then segmented into epochs 200 ms prior to and 300 ms following the onset of the 1st Gabor patch during orientation discrimination trials of each ODT. Epochs were rejected if their z-scores exceeded ±3 within parameters of amplitude range, variance, and deviation. Epoched data were then re-referenced to the average reference and submitted to independent component analysis (ICA) decomposition using the Infomax algorithm91. Artefactual components (i.e., muscular artifacts, eye blinks and saccades, electrode “pop-offs”, etc.) were automatically detected and removed from the data. Lastly, deviant channels within individual cleaned epochs were interpolated again using the EEGLAB spherical spline interpolation function. Baseline correction was applied to the 200 ms pre-stimulus period.

We focused on visual event-related potential (VEP), the P1 and C1-N1 complex, which reflect early visual cortical processing and serve to dissociate magnocellular and parvocellular processing35,36. At site Oz, for all three time points, we extracted mean P1 amplitudes to M-selective and C1/N1 amplitudes to P-selective stimuli during 113–148 ms and 74–152 ms, respectively, centered on their peak latencies.

Experiments 2 and 3
Participants. Fifty-two right-handed individuals (20.0 ± 3.18 years of age; 16 men) with normal or corrected-to-normal vision participated in this study, which consisted of a resting-state phase and Experiments 2 and 3. All participants denied a history of severe head injury, psychological or neurological disorders, or current use of psychotropic medication. All participants provided informed consent to participate in this study, which was approved by the Florida State University Institutional Review Board. Participants received course credits or monetary compensation. As in Experiment 1, based on the medium size effect of trait anxiety, we included 52 participants to ensure sufficient statistical power after potential exclusion due to artifacts and attrition. All 52 participants underwent Experiments 2 and 3 and were included in the VEP analysis. Of the 44 participants who completed resting-state recordings, one was excluded due to a technical problem, yielding a final sample of 43 for the resting-state analysis.

Trait anxiety assessment. As in Experiment 1, we administered the BIS questionnaire to assess trait anxiety.

Stimuli. Two types of Gabor patches (sinusoidal gratings multiplied by a Gaussian envelope) were included, which contained visual properties that selectively stimulate the magnocellular (M) and parvocellular (P) pathways. In Experiment 2, M-selective Gabor patches were of LSF (0.67 cpd), low luminance contrast (6.9% Michelson contrast), and achromatic, which were presented 10° horizontally off-center (extending a 4°×4° visual angle). P-selective Gabor patches were of HSF (3 cpd), chromatic (red-green) and presented at the center (extending a 4°×4° visual angle). These patches were made isoluminant by fixing the red and green luminance and the gray background luminance at 15.4 cd/m2, such that magnocellular activation induced by the onset of these stimuli would be maximally inhibited.

In Experiment 3, stimuli consisted of elongated ovals (extending a visual angle of 4.8°×9°) foveally presented in four different orientations (30°, 60°, 150°, 120° clockwise). Two types of achromatic filling gratings (tilting at 30°, 60°, 120°, 150° clockwise) were included: M-selective gratings were of LSF (.67 cpd) and low contrast (6.9% Michelson contrast) and P-selective gratings of HSF (3 cpd) and high contrast (34% Michelson contrast). As in Experiment 2, these physical properties were chosen to selectively activate the M- and P-selective pathways.

Stimulus presentation was linked to the refresh rate (60 Hz) of a CRT monitor and delivered using Cogent 2000 software (Wellcome Department, London, UK), as implemented in MATLAB (MathWorks, Natick, MA). Synchronization between stimulus display and data acquisition was verified using a photodiode placed at the center of the monitor screen.

Experiment procedure. Participants were seated ~60 cm from a CRT monitor in a dimly lit and electrically shielded room. Eyes-open resting-state EEG was first recorded when participants were asked to fixate on a crosshair on the screen. Participants then performed Experiments 2 and 3 the sequence of which was counter-balanced across participants.

In Experiment 2, a trial began with a blank screen for 100 ms, followed by a Gabor patch for 300 ms and then a gray fixation crosshair with a jittered duration of 700–1000 ms. No response was required from the participants, and twelve catch trials were included to ensure attention to the stimuli. The Gabor patches were either P-selective and presented centrally (100 trials) or M-selective and presented in the left/right visual periphery (10° off-center; 100 trials for each side). During a catch trial, a yellow fixation crosshair was presented for 1300 ms, to which participants were required to make a button press.

In Experiment 3, participants performed a similar orientation detection task as in Experiment 1. Each trial began with a centrally presented fixation crosshair with a jittered duration of 1600–1900 ms. The 1st oval appeared for 400 ms, followed by a visual mask of 100 ms, and the 2nd oval appeared for 400 ms, followed by another visual mask of 100 ms. The 2nd oval could be in the same orientation as the 1st oval or differ by 7° or 15°, and participants were required to make a speeded “Same” or “Different” response. A total of 560 trials, 280 trials each for M- or P-selective gratings, were randomly intermixed and presented across four blocks.

EEG recording and analysis. Recording procedures and analysis for Experiments 2 and 3 were largely the same as in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, P1 potentials were evoked by M-selective Gabor patches presented in the right or left visual periphery, maximally distributed at the contralateral posterior temporal sites (P7 and P8). We extracted mean P1 amplitudes (collapsed across the two sites) during 125–160 ms at P7 and 121–156 ms at P8 (centered on the respective peak latencies). A C1-N1 complex was evoked by P-selective Gabor patches, maximal at Oz. We extracted mean C1 amplitudes during 62–86 ms interval at Oz (centered on the peak latency). In Experiment 3, P1 potentials were evoked by M-selective gratings and C1 potentials by P-selective gratings, both maximal at Oz. We extracted mean P1 and C1 amplitudes during 86–121 ms and 54–70 ms, respectively, centered on their peak latencies.

Resting-state EEG/EOG data were recorded for 2 min using the same recording protocol as described in Experiment 1. As in our previous studies29,92, resting-state EEG data were downsampled to 256 Hz, high-pass (1 Hz) and notch (60 Hz) filtered, and re-referenced to the average of all EEG channels before submission to the FASTER algorithm for further artifact correction. Next, resting-state data were segmented into 1-s epochs and converted into a power spectrum with a Multitaper power spectral density estimate in the signal processing toolbox in Matlab 2021b (The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, United States). Zero padding was applied to provide a frequency resolution of 0.25 Hz in the 1 s epochs in time-domain EEG data. The aperiodic parameters (e.g., 1/f spectral exponents) of the resting-state power spectrum (3–50 Hz) were calculated using the “Fooof” toolbox 1.0.0 (https://github.com/fooof-tools/fooof70). The average R2 of spectral fits was 0.97, with all individual R2 exceeding 0.91, indicating strong overall and individual-level fit quality. According to70, we extracted aperiodic 1/f spectral exponents from the Cz site (collapsed across the Cz and four surrounding electrodes).

Exact low-resolution electromagnetic tomography (eLORETA). Based on VEP amplitudes from hdEEG in Experiment 2, 3 we performed intracranial source analyses through exact low-resolution electromagnetic tomography (eLORETA v20240713;44). The eLORETA algorithm on hdEEG data has been increasingly used for intracranial source estimation in our lab and others82,84,93–97, having been cross-validated in multiple studies combining EEG-based LORETA with fMRI98–102, positron emission tomography103,104, and intracranial recordings105.

Our solution space for intracranial source analyses consisted of 6239 cortical gray matter voxels with a spatial resolution of 5×5x5 mm in a realistic head model106, which was registered to standardized space using a digitized MRI from the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI). We estimated voxelwise current density during the C1 and P1 windows, which was then submitted to voxelwise correlation with the aperiodic exponent (1/f slope). To minimize false-positive results in intracranial source localization, our laboratory has routinely applied two constraints in the analyses52,82,84,93,97. First, eLORETA analysis was only applied to the time windows and tests that were significant in surface-level analysis107. Accordingly, we only submitted the C1 sources to the analysis. Second, we applied a Monte Carlo simulation based on the voxel spatial correlation inherent in the data to determine the statistical threshold of corrected p < 0.05 FDR. Specifically, using the Gaussian filter widths estimated from our data (FWHMx=2.57 mm, FWHMy=2.56 mm, FWHMz=2.38 mm), the voxel size (5×5x5 mm3), and a connection radius (5 mm), we derived a corrected threshold consisting of a voxel-level p < 0.005 over five contiguous voxels. All coordinates are reported in MNI space.

Experiment 4
Participants. This dataset was initially reported in ref. 52. Forty-six right-handed individuals (19.3 ± 2.3 years of age; 22 men) with normal or corrected-to-normal vision participated in the study. Six participants were excluded due to excessive eye movements and technical problems, yielding a final sample of 40 participants for VEP analysis. All participants denied a history of severe head injury, psychological or neurological disorders, or current use of psychotropic medication. All participants provided informed consent to participate in this study, which was approved by the University of Wisconsin Institutional Review Board. Participants received course credits or monetary compensation.

Trait anxiety assessment. As in Experiments 1–3, we administered the BIS questionnaire to assess trait anxiety.

Stimuli. Twenty-seven images were selected from the International Affective Picture Set (IAPS88) and internet sources, depicting natural scenes/objects of fearful, disgusting, or neutral content (nine for each emotion category). These images were transformed to grayscale and equal size (256×256 pixels) and were low-pass filtered at 3 cycles/degree or high-pass filtered at 7 cycles/degree to generate low spatial frequency (LSF; M-selective) or high spatial frequency (HSF; P-selective) images, respectively. Spatial-frequency-filtered images were further normalized to equal luminance (17.11 cd/m2) and luminance contrast by the SHINE Matlab toolbox108. Next, wavelet analyses109 were applied to filtered image sets to ensure equal wavelet energy for each emotion category in both H/LSF bands52. Similarly, objective measures of visual complexity (edge density, entropy, compressed image size) were extracted110 and submitted to ANOVAs (Emotion by SF), which revealed no effect of emotion or emotion-by-SF interaction52.

Stimulus presentation was linked to the refresh rate (60 Hz) of a CRT monitor and delivered using Cogent 2000 software (Wellcome Department, London, UK), as implemented in MATLAB (MathWorks, Natick, MA). Synchronization between stimulus display and data acquisition was verified using a photodiode placed at the center of the monitor screen.

Procedure. Participants were seated ~120 cm from a CRT monitor in an electrically shielded room and performed a visual search task adapted from a previous study84. Each trial began with a centrally presented fixation crosshair with a jittered duration of 1150–1650 ms, followed by an image (7.2°×7.2°) centrally displayed for 150 ms. Next, a search array in green was superimposed on the image for 500 ms, consisting of one horizontal bar (target) and seven vertical bars (distracters). Participants were required to make a button press to indicate the quadrant where the target was located while maintaining fixation. There was a total of 600 randomly intermixed trials presented in four experimental blocks, with 100 per each experimental condition (M/P-selective X Fear/Disgust/Neutral).

EEG recording and analysis. EEG were recorded from a 96-channel (BioSemi ActiveTwo) system at a 1024 Hz sampling rate, downsampled to 256 Hz, and digitally bandpass filtered from 0.1 to 40 Hz. Electrooculogram (EOG) was recorded at two eye electrodes at the outer canthi of each eye and one infraorbital to the left eye. The epoch was segmented from –200 to 300 ms post stimulus onset to focus on early visual processing. Trials with EEG/EOG voltages exceeding ±75 µV (relative to pre-stimulus baseline) were excluded from analysis. Inspection of grand average waveforms indicated clear P1s elicited by both M- and P-selective scenes, maximal at the central occipital site Oz, peaking at 119 ms and 115 ms post-stimulus, respectively. At site Oz, we extracted mean P1 amplitudes in the window of 100–135 ms, centered on the averaged peak latency of the two types of images.

Peer review rounds
[{"round": 1, "reviewer_comments": {"reviewer_1": "The study tested the hypothesis of early visual cortical responses (ERPs) as a neural marker of trait anxiety. Overall, the\nstudy is well motivated, the methods are sound, and, with the caveat that multiple comparisons were not considered in\nstatistics, the findings support the conclusions. Authors should be commended for careful consideration about assessment of\nindividual anxiety and effort in distinguishing the M and P pathways of visual cortical responses. This reviewer has a few\ncomments authors may wish to address in a revision.\nIntroduction:\n1) \"A widespread assumption is that sensory cortex maintains high fidelity with respect to external\nstimuli. This implies its responses should be relatively consistent across individuals—unless\nmodulated by higher-order (limbic and prefrontal) inputs. However, this conflicts with\nevolutionary evidence that sensory cortex emerged before limbic and prefrontal structures, and\nthat ancient organisms (such as the ancestral amniote) depended on it to flexibly identify\npredators and prey.\"\nIt's not clear how sensory fidelity conflicts with said evolutionary evidence. The statements need to be elaborated on to be\nconvincing.\nMethods and Results:\n1) \"Sample size was determined based on a medium effect size typically observed for trait anxiety (i.e., r = .35, requiring a\nsample size of 46 to reach a power of .80).\"\nIt's not clear how this came about - the effect size of? To truly estimate the power, more details of these earlier studies would\nneed to be provided for it to be convincing.\n2) \"... while consistency with Time 3 would attest to long-term reliability.\"\nI wouldn't say that assessment across a few weeks is relevant to long-term reliability. It's more about test retest stability.\n3) Fifty-two (52) subjects participated in the study. However, from the scatter/regression plots, the n seemed short - were\nsome subjects excluded in data analyses? If so, exclusion criteria need to be specified and the sample size for each set of\nanalyses clearly specified.\n4) women and men are known to have different clinical manifestations and potentially pathophysiological processes of\nanxiety, clinical or subclinical. It would significantly enhance the impact of the study if the analyses are also conducted\nseparately for women and men, with sex-specific findings cross-validated, if found.\n5) Somewhat concerning is that the majority of the regressions were significant at p<0.05, without correction for multiple\ncomparisons.\n6) Authors estimated the source of ERPs, but this did not appear to be performed for all experiments?\n7) Source estimation appeared to show some ERPs in the cuneus and others in the lingual gyrus. Lingual gyrus has been\nbroadly implicated in emotion processing and in the mechanisms of emotional disorders. Authors may want to carefully\nconsider this issue to give justice to the data.", "reviewer_2": "The study investigates the relationship between trait anxiety and early visual cortical hyperactivity, focusing on\nthe parvocellular (P) pathway in the visual system. The authors report that individuals with high trait anxiety\nexhibit heightened activity in the primary visual cortex (V1/V2) as early as 50-100 ms post-stimulus, specifically in the P-\npathway (but not the magnocellular/M-pathway). This hyperactivity is stable across time, arousal states, and stimulus\ntypes (ranging from basic Gabor patches to complex natural scenes). Furthermore, in low-anxiety individuals, the aperiodic\nexponent (1/f slope) of resting-state EEG (a proxy for E/I ratio) predicts P-pathway response magnitude, suggesting intact E/I\nmodulation. In high-anxiety individuals, this relationship breaks down, implying impaired E/I regulation as a potential\nmechanism for hyperactivity. Overall, I find this study well-conceived and clearly written. However, closer inspection of the\ndata related to E/I (de)regulation as a mechanism suggests the preliminary nature of this observation. The manuscript might be\nbetter suited for a more specialized journal where additional methodological details could be explored.\nThe paper has several strengths. First, it features a robust and reproducible design, with a relatively large sample size\nacross four experiments. The findings also control for state anxiety through aversive conditioning and address stimulus\nconfounds (e.g., luminance, spatial frequency). Second, the results shift focus away from frontal-limbic dysfunction in\nanxiety, highlighting instead early sensory changes associated with anxiety. Third, the experimental design and stimulus\npresentation appear rigorous, setting this work apart from many similar studies in the field.\nHowever, there are also clear weaknesses. First, the evidence supporting E/I imbalance as a mechanism remains limited.\nFor instance, the key E/I finding relies on a one-tailed post-hoc test (p = 0.04), which is statistically weak and risks Type I\nerror. Moreover, the aperiodic exponent (1/f slope) serves as only an indirect measure of E/I balance; concurrent fMRI/MRS\nor pharmacological manipulations would strengthen these claims. Without additional corroborating evidence, the current\nconclusions should be considered preliminary.\nSecond, scalp EEG has poor spatial resolution, making it difficult to definitively localize activity to V1/V2. While eLORETA\nprovides some assistance, it remains an estimation - I find it particularly challenging to achieve such precise localization,\neven with MEG recordings using >160 channels.\nThird, the current evidence remains purely correlational. There is no causal evidence (e.g., TMS or lesion studies) to confirm\nwhether V1 hyperactivity is necessary for anxiety. Additional TMS evidence targeting V1/V2 stimulation could substantially\nstrengthen the argument for early sensory deficits and regional specificity.\nFourth, the M-pathway hypoactivity observed in Experiment 1 was not clear in Experiments 2-4, raising questions about its\nrobustness. The reciprocal P/M relationship (Fig. S1) might reflect task design (e.g., rapid alternation suppressing M\nresponses) rather than being a genuine trait anxiety effect.\nFinally, while trait anxiety represents a risk factor for disorders (e.g., PTSD, autism), the study doesn't examine clinical\npopulations or establish causal links to symptoms. It remains unclear whether anxiety leads to hypersensitivity in sensory\nregions or whether sensory hypersensitivity contributes to anxiety development.", "reviewer_3": "The paper by Wu and colleagues describes a set of experiments, two new and two previously published from a different\nperspective/scope, that reveal trait anxiety-induced hyperactivity in the visual cortex. This hyperactivity manifests very early,\nstarting at 46 ms in one of the experiments. The authors interpret these results as showing that anxiety involves mechanisms\nthat are not mediated in a top-down fashion, but occur in the “earliest processing phase”, before those top-down processes\ntake place. The idea that structures higher in the processing hierarchy (amygdala, hippocampus, limbic system or prefrontal\nregions, as mentioned by authors) are not necessarily involved in all neural mechanisms underlying trait anxiety is very\ninteresting and I fully agree with it. However, this article presents several major problems, in my opinion.\n1-On the exclusive allocation of effects to the visual cortex and its status as the “earliest processing stage”.\nOne of the key conclusions of the paper is that visual cortex activity is affected by trait anxiety, and that this cortical region is\nsolely responsible for the observed effects. In relation to this, and throughout the paper, the idea that visual processing\nbegins in the visual cortex is consistently defended. For example, at several (relevant) passages of the paper, such as the\nabstract or the conclusion paragraph, the authors indicate that the visual cortex is the “earliest processing stage” or “the\nearliest staging post for external inputs”.\nHowever, every pre-cortical key structure within the visual ascending route, including the retinal ganglion cells and the\nvisual thalamus, are active visual processors. For example, retinal ganglion cells change their response to the very same\nstimulus depending on the top-down modulation they receive (Warwick et al., 2024). Similarly, the response of the visual\nthalamus (e.g., the lateral geniculate nucleus -LGN-, which is the main upstream modulator of striate visual cortex) to\nidentical stimuli also varies as a function of task demands (e.g., see reviews by Ghodrati et al., 2017; Halassa and Kastner,\n2017; Saalmann and Kastner, 2011; Weyand, 2016).\nClearly, these structures, which are on the main input way to the visual cortex, strongly influence its activity. In other words,\nthe effects detected in the visual cortex could be at least partially due to these precortical stages (whose activity cannot be\ndetected directly by ERPs, but indirectly through their effects on the visual cortex). Importantly, this precortical activity may\nunderlie certain types of anxiety (Milosavljevic et al., 2016), or be affected by anxiety or arousal (e.g., Salay, 2021; Schröder\net al., 2020).\nIn the same vein, and crucially, another key finding of the paper is the differential effect of trait anxiety as a function of the two\nvisual streams, parvocellular and magnocellular, which originate in the LGN of the thalamus and reach, without intermediate\nmodulation, the visual cortex at approximately the latency at which the first anxiety effects are reported here.\n2- On parvo- and magnocellular activity discrimination based on spatial frequency or luminance/color manipulation.\nPlease note that manipulation of spatial frequency, and/or luminance and color, does not guarantee the distinction of magno-\nand parvo-cellular visual processing, as assumed in the paper (although this strategy has often been employed). For\nexample, see these works by Bernt Skottun:\nSkottun, B. C. (2015). On the use of spatial frequency to isolate contributions from the magnocellular and parvocellular\nsystems and the dorsal and ventral cortical streams. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 56, 266-275.\nSkottun, B. C. (2013). On using isoluminant stimuli to separate magno-and parvocellular responses in psychophysical\nexperiments—A few words of caution. Behavior Research Methods, 45(3), 637-645.\n3- On the experimental design and logic.\nExperiments 2 and 3 were designed de novo for this study (Experiments 1 and 4 consist of reanalyzing data from past\npublished experiments, but from a new perspective/scope). The authors indicate that Experiment 3 was designed to rule out\nthat the results of Experiment 2 were due to a restricted sensitivity to color processing, so that the stimuli in Experiment 3\nwere achromatic. However, the authors also indicate that the order of Experiment 2 and 3 was counterbalanced (the\nparticipants were the same in both experiments). In other words, the authors designed Experiment 3 at the same time as\nExperiment 2. The question that arises is why, if the authors considered from the beginning that color could be an interfering\nfactor, they did not go directly to the experiment without color (current Experiment 3).\n4-On the interpretation of results.\nTwo of the main interpretations/conclusions contradict (at least apparently) some of the main results. On the one hand, the\ncorrelations between anxiety scores and P1 amplitude did not differ as a function of the emotional load of the images\n(neutral, fearful, and aversive): Experiment 4. However, the authors indicate that the described modulation of visual cortex\nactivity by trait anxiety serves to better detect threat (e.g., “hyperactivity in visual cortex could facilitate overactivation of threat\nmemory, intensifying threat detection and recall,” p. 11). If the anxiety-induced increase in visual cortex activity is similar for\nthreatening and neutral stimuli (Exp. 4), this interpretation does not seem justified.\nOn the other hand, the key result and conclusion pointing to the parvocellular, but not magnocellular, visual processing\nstream as responsible for the observed effects are also not clearly in agreement with some interpretation in the Discussion\nsection. For example, “In individuals with high trait anxiety, sensory cortex hyperactivity (and disinhibition) would allow\nirrelevant or unwanted environmental input to evoke sensory cortical responses”. However, irrelevant or unwanted\nenvironmental inputs are typically projected onto non-foveal regions of the retina (in other words, gaze does not focus on\nthem). Considering that retinal projections to P and M layers of the LGN decline to a greater extent in the former case with\neccentricity (e.g., Brown et al., 2005), resulting in a magnocellular bias for peripheral vision, this interpretation seems also\ncontradictory.\n5- Other relevant comments.\n- Given that the mean amplitude is very dependent on the width of the analyzed window of ERPs (or window of interest -\nWOI-), please explain how WOI widths were defined.\n- No evidence of effect is not the same as evidence of no effect. The absence of significant correlation between ERP\namplitude and anxiety scores is interpreted as a proof in favor of the null hypothesis -i.e., no effect- (e.g., “negating the\npresence of a magnocellular hypoactivity in trait anxiety”, p. 7). Indeed, and in order to determine whether this conclusion is\nvalid, the likelihood of Ho should be computed, for example, through Bayesian methods."}, "author_response": "Response to the comments on the submission “Anxious vision: Trait-like visual\ncortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety” by Wu et al (NCOMMS-25-13802)\nResponses to Reviewer 1:\nWe are encouraged that the reviewer commented on our “novel and interesting approach” and\nconsidered “the contribution to the field potentially very strong”. We are also extremely\ngrateful for the excellent comments and constructive suggestions, which have been fully\naddressed and incorporated in the revised manuscript. Our responses are detailed below. The\nReviewer’s original comments are quoted verbatim and displayed in grey shading.\nModifications are highlighted in the text and reproduced here in corresponding responses\n(highlighted in blue).\n“The study tested the hypothesis of early visual cortical responses (ERPs) as a neural marker of\ntrait anxiety. Overall, the study is well motivated, the methods are sound, and, with the caveat\nthat multiple comparisons were not considered in statistics, the findings support the conclusions.\nAuthors should be commended for careful consideration about assessment of individual anxiety\nand effort in distinguishing the M and P pathways of visual cortical responses. This reviewer has a\nfew comments authors may wish to address in a revision.\nIntroduction:\n1) \"A widespread assumption is that sensory cortex maintains high fidelity with respect to stimuli.\nThis implies its responses should be relatively consistent across individuals—unless modulated by\nhigher-order (limbic and prefrontal) inputs. However, this conflicts with\nevolutionary evidence that sensory cortex emerged before limbic and prefrontal structures, and\nthat ancient organisms (such as the ancestral amniote) depended on it to flexibly identify\npredators and prey.\" It's not clear how sensory fidelity conflicts with said evolutionary evidence.\nThe statements need to be elaborated on to be convincing.”\nWe thank the Reviewer and have clarified the statement, as reproduced below:\np. 3: A widespread assumption is that the sensory cortex maintains high fidelity to external\nstimuli, which implies consistent responses across individuals—unless modulated by higher-\norder prefrontal or limbic inputs. However, the notion of rigid sensory encoding conflicts with the\nevolutionary history of sensory cortex: Phylogenetic evidence indicates that sensory cortex\nevolved prior to the emergence of limbic and prefrontal structures, as observed in ancient\norganisms such as the ancestral amniote (21, 22). Absent these higher-order structures,\nsensory cortex likely evolved flexible encoding—dynamically shaped by internal states and the\nbiological value of external stimuli—to support adaptive interactions with the environment.\n“Methods and Results:\n1) \"Sample size was determined based on a medium effect size typically observed for trait anxiety\n(i.e., r = .35, requiring a sample size of 46 to reach a power of .80).\"\nIt's not clear how this came about - the effect size of? To truly estimate the power, more details of\nthese earlier studies would need to be provided for it to be convincing.”\nWe regret the omission of relevant references demonstrating the medium effect size typically\nassociated with trait anxiety, e.g., its correlations with behavioral and neural measures. This\ninformation has now been included in the resubmission.\npp.14-15: Sample size was determined based on a medium effect size typically associated with\ntrait anxiety, e.g., its correlations with behavioral and neural measures, as reported both in\nmeta-analyses (84) and our previous research (56, 85, 86). Specifically, assuming a medium\neffect size (r = .35), a sample size of 46 is required to achieve 80% power.\n“2) \"... while consistency with Time 3 would attest to long-term reliability.\"\nI wouldn't say that assessment across a few weeks is relevant to long-term reliability. It's more\nabout test retest stability.”\nThe Reviewer raises a fair point, and we agree. As per the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have\nmodified this statement:\np. 5: while consistency with Time 3 would attest to robust test-retest reliability.\n“3) Fifty-two (52) subjects participated in the study. However, from the scatter/regression plots,\nthe n seemed short - were some subjects excluded in data analyses? If so, exclusion criteria need\nto be specified and the sample size for each set of analyses clearly specified.”\nWe apologize for the confusion. In the resubmission, we have provided more specific\ninformation about exclusion and sample sizes for specific analyses, as reproduced below.\nFor Experiment 1:\np. 14: A total of fifty-two individuals (19.5 +/- 1.4 years; 22 men) participated in the first two\nsessions that took place on Day 1, and forty-two returned to participate in the third session on\nDay 16. Five and six participants were excluded from analysis for Day 1 and Day 16,\nrespectively, due to excessive eye movements, severe EEG artifact and technical problems,\nresulting in final samples of 47 and 36 for Day 1 and Day 16 VEP analyses, respectively.\nFor Experiments 2 & 3:\np. 18: All 52 participants underwent Experiments 2 & 3 and were included in the VEP analysis.\nOf the 44 participants who completed resting-state recordings, one was excluded due to a\ntechnical problem, yielding a final sample of 43 for the resting-state analysis.\nFor Experiment 4:\np. 21: Six participants were excluded due to excessive eye movements and technical problems,\nyielding a final sample of 40 participants for VEP analysis.\n“4) women and men are known to have different clinical manifestations and potentially\npathophysiological processes of anxiety, clinical or subclinical. It would significantly enhance the\nimpact of the study if the analyses are also conducted separately for women and men, with sex-\nspecific findings cross-validated, if found.”\nThe Reviewer makes an excellent suggestion, which we deeply appreciate. We have now\nincluded a new section to report new analyses of potential sex effects (both simple and\ninteractive with anxiety) on the VEPs. Please note that to ensure sufficient power this\nnecessitated, we pooled participants across all three samples for the following three analyses.\n1. Using hierarchical multiple linear regression, we entered the VEP as the outcome\nvariable and included Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) as\nregressors in the first step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step. For the P-selective\nVEP, we replicated the significant anxiety effect (p = .005) but observed no main effect\nof Sex (p = .882) or Sex-by-Anxiety interaction (p = .728). For the M-selective VEP, similar\nto the main results, there was no effect of anxiety or sex.\n2. To further probe these effects, we examined the effect of trait anxiety within each sex\nseparately. Anxiety effects on the P-selective VEP were comparable across the sexes,\nwhile no anxiety effects emerged for the M-selective VEP in either sex.\n3. Finally, we compared trait anxiety levels between the sexes and found that trait anxiety\nwas lower in males (18.68 ± 4.08) than females (20.27 ± 4.23), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027,\nconfirming the well-established sex bias in anxiety and helping to rule out systematic\nsampling bias in our study.\nIn summary, while male and female participants differed in trait anxiety levels, the association\nbetween anxiety and P-selective VEPs was consistent across sexes, suggesting this sensory\ncortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of sex. The results are reproduced below\nfor the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well-established sex difference in prevalence and clinical manifestations of anxiety\n(55), potentially reflecting distinct pathophysiological processes. On this basis, in hierarchical\nmultiple linear regressions on pooled data from our three independent samples (see SOM for\ndetails), we explored whether women and men differ with respect to an association between\ntrait anxiety and visual cortical hyperactivity. Separate models were implemented for P- and M-\nselective VEPs, with Sample (dummy-coded), Sex, and Trait Anxiety (BIS scores) entered in the\nfirst step and Sex-by-Anxiety in the second step as regressors. For the P-selective VEP, we\nreplicated the significant anxiety effect (sr = .35, p < .001) but observed no Sex-by-Anxiety\ninteraction (sr = -.03, p = .762). For the M-selective VEP, there was no effect of anxiety (sr =\n-.02, p = .864), consistent with the main results, and no sex-by-anxiety interaction (sr = -.004, p\n= .960).\nWe also performed similar regression analyses in female and male groups separately. In both\ngroups, trait anxiety significantly predicted P-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = .36/.35; p\n= .001/.011). By contrast, neither group showed a significant association between trait anxiety\nand M-selective VEPs (females/males: sr = -.03/-.01; p = .760/.948). Notably, a simple t-test on\nBIS scores showed significantly greater trait anxiety in females (20.27 ± 4.23) compared to\nmales (18.68 ± 4.08), t(136) = 2.23, p = .027, consistent with the known sex bias in anxiety (55)\nand suggesting also an absence of systematic sampling bias in our study. In summary, we\nfound no evidence that sex moderates the relationship between trait anxiety and visual cortical\nhyperactivity, suggesting that this sensory cortical hyperactivity in trait anxiety is independent of\nsex. The results are reproduced below for the Reviewer’s convenience:\npp. 9-10: Sex independence: Similar trait anxiety association with parvocellular visual\ncortical hyperactivity in women and men\nThere is a well"}]

Decision letter