Proposed models like these are meant to be a synthesis of existing knowledge as an approach to understanding something new.
IMO, proposing ways in which to expand or correct or even invalidate the model using your criticism is great. Simply dismissing a model on the basis as the 'same old same old' isn't very enlightened. Or useful, IMO. It obviates being published in the first place.
If you want to completely negate it, that's great, but a little contrapunctus is in order, i.e., cite some work that negates the hypothesis. The paper I cited originally (saw a pre-print) will be out Jan 13. I think. I assume it won't be all that changed. Go from there. BTW you're gonna have a lot citing to do. My opinion only. YMMV.
N.B.: neurophyisiology is not my strong point. I was a population biologist years and years ago. Now I twiddle bits and invert bytes.