Multi-dimensional social relationships shape social attention in monkeys

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study aims to investigate the links between social behaviors observed in free-moving situations and behavioral performances measured in well-controlled, laboratory settings. The authors assessed general social tendencies and dyadic relationships among four monkeys in a group by scoring agonistic (aggression) and affiliative (grooming and proximity) behaviors in each pair. By measuring the saccadic reaction time in a classic social interference task, the authors reported that the monkeys with higher SEIs (i.e., more social individuals) were less distracted by the faces of other monkeys. These effects were enhanced when the distractors were out-group monkey faces rather than in-group ones. Lastly, oxytocin administration increased the impact of the out-group monkey faces in the social interference task, while reducing the magnitude of general social tendencies measured with SEI.

Strengths:

(1) The combination of behavioral data obtained in a colony room and in a laboratory environment is rare and important.
(2) The evaluation of social interactions were successfully performed based on an automated target detection algorithm. The resulting multi-dimensional, complicated social interactions were summarized into simple indices (SEI and IEI). These indices provide a good measure for the social tendencies of each monkey.
(3) Well-designed and robust experiments in the laboratory environment that are linked nicely with the general social tendencies observed in spontaneous behaviors.

Weaknesses:

(1) While the overall results are interesting, I am somewhat left confused about how to interpret the difference in the scores derived from different conditions. For example, the authors stated "Comparing the weights for in-group and out-group distractors, the effect of proximity was larger than that of aggression and grooming" in p.8. Does this mean that the proximity is indeed the type of behavior most affected in the out-group condition compared to the in-group condition? The out-group effects are difficult to examine with actual behavioral data, but some in-group effects such as those involving OT can be tested, which possibly provides good insights into interpreting the differences of the weights observed across the experimental conditions.

(2) I think it is important to provide how variable spontaneous social interactions were across sessions and how impactful the variability of the interactions is on the SEI and IEI, as it helps to understand how meaningful the differences of weights are across the conditions, but such data are missing. In line with this point, although the conclusions still hold as those data were obtained during the same experimental periods, shouldn't the weights in Fig. 3f and Figs. 4g and 4h (saline) be expected to be similar, if not the same?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The study presents significant findings that elucidate the relationship between multi-dimensional social relationships and social attention in rhesus macaques. By integrating advanced computational methods, behavioral analyses, and neuroendocrine manipulation, the authors provide strong evidence for how oxytocin modulates attention within social networks. The results are robust and address critical gaps in understanding the dynamics of social attention in primates.

Strengths:

(1) The use of YOLOv5 for automatic behavioral detection is an exceptional methodological advance. The combination of automated analyses with manual validation enhances confidence in the data.
(2) The study's focus on three distinct dimensions of social interaction (aggression, grooming, and proximity) is comprehensive and provides nuanced insights into the complexity of primate social networks.
(3) The investigation of oxytocin's role adds a compelling neuroendocrine dimension to the findings, providing a bridge between behavioral and neural mechanisms.

Weaknesses:

(1) The study's conclusions are based on observations of only four monkeys, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Larger sample sizes could strengthen the validity of the results.
(2) The limited set of stimulus images (in-group and out-group faces) may introduce unintended biases. This could be addressed by increasing the diversity of stimuli or incorporating a broader range of out-group members.