The scholarly (Wylie) transliteration generally used in books on Tibetan tantra is "gTum Mo" (or some variation). Rendering this as "g-tummo" is like writing "knight" as "k-night". The only places where "g-tummo" seems to appear, if my web search is representative, is in responses to this article, and to Benson's. It may be that this misunderstanding has become naturalized and even uncorrectable in neuroscience publications, but it looks very eccentric to anyone used to reading Wylie transliteration. If a hyphen is to be used, it should indicate the space between syllables, not randomly break up the spelling of a single syllable (and "gTum" is a single syllable, just as "knight" is a single syllable). It's almost as eccentric as it would be to insist on rendering "Tchaikovsky" as "T-chaikovsky" in a cookbook because some classic cookbook had once done so, and therefore all cookbooks must do so, even though nowhere else is it done that way. Please excuse my pedantry; I have belabored the point enough!

I strongly disagree with this answer because your current paper did not male improvement over the plain mistake made by the earlier researchers in not getting the romanization done correctly. What the first responder said is sound. 'G-tummo' needs correction since there is no 'G' sound. The word needs to be respelled.