PONE-D-20-38134

Disentangling the effects of modality, interval length and task difficulty on the accuracy and precision of older adults in a rhythmic reproduction task.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yotsumoto,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 04 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michael B. Steinborn, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Editorial Comment: I could find one referee to comment on your work, so I decided to take the effort of reviewing myself. Detailed comments and suggestions can be found below. Reviewer 1 raised some methodological issues that would prevent publication in its present form. To name some issues, the statistics are not transparently presented, the experimental design is somewhat underpowered, and theoretical mechanisms should be given more emphasis. My own comments are provided below and are aimed to aid you in the process of revision.

(-1-) Power/Sample Size

(--) I agree with Reviewer 1 that the present design is not sufficiently powered. Very strictly, this would mean that further data collection would be necessary (though I would not demand it). However, I suggest finding ways handling the issue of power in the revised version of the manuscript.   

(--) The reporting of statistics might be reworked in the revised version of the manuscript. At present, it is not transparently presented. I personally suggest using classic frequency-based statistical analyses to verify results (though I would not strictly demand it). 

(-2-) Self-report measures

Given that age-related differences in performance measures are determined by both cognitive ability and motivation (task engagement), it is essential (at least common) to collect both pre-test and post-test measures of subjective state. This is not mentioned in the present study. With this respect, I would like to suggest a psychometric instrument to assessing stress state in performance settings, which has been regarded the gold standard in many research domains. The dundee stress state questionnaire (DSSQ, Langner et al., 2010, for methodical aspects of assessing time-related processing effects on engagement/distress) is a theory-oriented instrument aimed to assess the fundamental dimensions of subjective state in performance settings, namely task engagement, distress, and worry, which can further be divided into more specific sub-facets. The measure is widely accepted and the instrument is well-evaluated, and has good psychometric properties. I would recommend the DSSQ for future studies, but more importantly, it would be appreciable if the authors could give a short opinion or outlook on the possibilities of assessing engagement to the task in future studies and to elaborate somewhat more deeply on potential limitations with this regard.

(-4-) Theoretical mechanisms

I would also agree with Reviewer 1 that the theoretical background needs to be reworked during the revision of the manuscript. To this end, I have prepared a list of relevant papers that might be important to consult during the revision process and to consider in the revised version of the manuscript. 

(--) relatively new methodological work on developmental effects of time-related processing

Vallesi, A., McIntosh, A. R., & Stuss, D. T. (2009). Temporal preparation in aging: A functional MRI study.  Neuropsychologia, 47(13), 2876-2881. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.06.013

Mento, G., & Granziol, U. (2020). The Developing Predictive Brain: How Implicit Temporal Expectancy Induced by Local  and Global Prediction Shapes Action Preparation Across Development. Developmental Science.  doi:10.1111/desc.12954

(--) frequently cited literature on methodical aspects of temporal processing 

Bherer, L., & Belleville, S. (2004). Age-related differences in response preparation: The role of time uncertainty. Journals  of Gerontology Series B-Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 59(2), P66-P74.

Langner, R. et al. (2010). Mental fatigue and temporal preparation in simple reaction-time performance. Acta Psychologica, 133(1), 64-72. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.10.001

Steinborn, M. B., Rolke, B., Bratzke, D., & Ulrich, R. (2008). Sequential effects within a short foreperiod context: Evidence  for the conditioning account of temporal preparation. Acta Psychologica, 129(2), 297-307.  doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.08.005

  

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.) Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I carefully read this paper by Yotsumoto and colleagues, which investigates how aging impairs temporal processing capacity. In this regard, the authors have adopted an experimental task of rhythmic temporal reproduction through different sensory modalities and also manipulating the cognitive load. The topic is potentially interesting even if difficult to generalize to applicative aspects or simply to everyday life. The introduction is clear, linear and generally well written although I have noticed some typos and errors in English. However, I fear that there are some major concerns that currently limit the ability to accept this article for publication.

1) A first aspect concerns the statistical approach. I admit that I am not a Bayesian analysis expert, which is why my judgment only reflects subjective perplexities. In general, I appreciate the idea of using alternative methods to simple GLM models. However, I wonder if the use of a Bayesian approach is adequate for a study that presents several experiments with even a complex factorial design (and very low sample size, see below). For example, in experiment 2 the authors state that

" The analysis of effects revealed that the main effect of Memory Load was anecdotal (BF = 1.698). In other words, it is unclear whether the performance worsened with increased task difficulty (Fig 5). However, the outperforming model, compared to the null model, was that of " Memory Load + Modality + Timing + Age + Modality × Age + 61 Timing × Age " (BF10 = 1.511e, error = 2.889%) which indeed adds Memory Load as one of the factors that can improve model performance. In fact, when comparing this model to the second-best performing model “Modality + Timing + Age + Modality × Age 60 + Timing × Age "; BF10 = 9.513e, error = 10.433%), it can be said that there is a 59% increase in the model performance. Thus though analysis of effects revealed anecdotal”.

Personally, I find it difficult to understand the validity of this statement since it is not clear to me in which way a more complex model can substitute a null result regarding a fundamental manipulation for the logic of the study, that is, the absence of effect of the double task. I therefore wonder if it is not the case to add an additional analysis using classical or mixed models (GLMM) in order to better frame the results. As I am not an expert on the matter, however, I refer the decision to the editor.

2) Another important issue is the very low sample size. I realize that the study has already been recorded, so an accurate analysis of the statistical power has already been done, as suggested by the G Power test done by the authors. However, I cannot help but find it contradictory to accept a study with so few subjects (14 per experiment and per group) since one of the strategies strongly proposed by the OSF is to increase the sample size to improve data replicability. Among other things, this point is not trivial especially in the presence of experiments or groups characterized by a high individual variability, as in the case of the elderly group. This issue is even more important if considering that it deals with simple behavioral experiments rather than invasive or complex neuroimaging techniques or special populations like patients or very young infants.

3) It is not clear to me why the authors considered only a single interval between the sixth and seventh stimuli rather than, for example, an average of all intervals. I think that a data analysis taking into account this aspect could be more robust.

4) Another potentially relevant aspect is the type of task used to test the distributed model. The perceptual discrimination task actually loads the working memory more than it does for attention, since the difficulty of this task is low. Therefore, I wonder if the results may actually reflect a "loss" of beats as predicted by the model and hypothesized by the authors or rather memory overload. Even if the task used by itself does not impact much on the memory, nevertheless the reproduction of rhythms involves in any case a coding maintenance recovery of the temporal information from the memory. Therefore, I am not sure that the manipulation proposed in this study is actually suitable for testing the distributed model, especially since it involves elderly people, who could also have difficulties in the mechanisms of coding and retrieving information in memory rather than simply attention load.

Minor issues:

Pag 16, 331: “I thik that it is Exp. 2”

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Disentangling the effects of modality, interval length and task difficulty on the accuracy and precision of older adults in a rhythmic reproduction task.

PONE-D-20-38134R1

Dear Dr. Yotsumoto,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Michael B. Steinborn, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

I read the manusript again and commented on some occasions, however, this will likely not take much time to consider. I think, it is not necessary to invite further rounds as these points are only very minor and can be handled during the final manuscript preparation stage.

 (--) check for typos, examples, --p. 2, line 28-30, numbering in brackets (1)--p.9,  line 167, statistical measures in italics (e.g., M, SD, p, F, etc., applies here and on other occasions) (--) p. 34, line 724, provide more explanation, briefly, suggestion: this is to ensure that the observed age-related differences are not biased by differences in mental states immediately before the testing. For example, age groups often are recruited from a normal population not experienced with experimental testing, while younger groups are mostly based on student samples having high experience with testing. .. (--) references--check references for typos--doi number is lacking on some occasions

Reviewers' comments: