• Crucial information on experimental design is lacking. The authors do not state the number of animals that were used, how many animals were treated in each group, the attrition rate (by, e.g., animal death), whether or not experimenters and/or caretakers were blind for treatment, whether or not animals were tested in multiple assays (although, given the different sample sizes, it appears that they were not), and whether or not analysts were blind to treatment. 
  • The statistical analysis of the spontaneous alternation experiment increases the false positive ratio, because the same dataset was analyzed twice. As a result, a finding that was null in the first analysis (considering all tetragrams) now turns into a positive finding (considering only alternation and repetition data).
  • In the discussion of the text it is proposed that during the task of spontaneous alternation in the Y- maze due to the absence of novelties during the random exploration the fish starts to perform the exploration in alternating sequences (less cognitively demanding, according to an adaptation of the "law of the less mental work ") in this sense, it might be interesting in future analysis to identify in which moments of the test the patterns of alternating exploration emerge in order to identify if really they appear after the phases of exploration random and perhaps better elucidate the meaning of this behavior and because ethanol specifically changed this parameter.