Effect of hearing aids on body balance function in non-reverberant condition: A posturographic study

Chihiro Ninomiya; Harukazu Hiraumi; Kiyoshi Yonemoto; Hiroaki Sato

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0258590

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 16, 2021
23 Aug 2021 Decision Letter - Manabu Sakakibara, Editor PONE-D-21-23190 Effect of hearing aids on body balance function in non-reverberant condition: A posturographic study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hiraumi, 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. This Academic Editor has to express my apology to be late for this decision letter, because the third reviewer has not yet given the comments within a due date. Two experts in the field have carefully reviewed the manuscript entitled, "Effect of hearing aids on body balance function in non-reverberant condition: A posturographic study". Their comments are appended below. Both reviewers appreciate the manuscript with leaving some minor concerns which should be clarified before publication. I will expect to receive the replies to each critiques and necessary revision. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 07 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Manabu Sakakibara, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE 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 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (HH, grant number JP17K11341).] Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: [This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (grant number JP17K11341). We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.] We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: [This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (HH, grant number JP17K11341).] Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: [No authors have competing interests]. Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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 Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: 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: The study is interesting but it has some limitations such as small number of participants that authors mentioned. All of the normal hearing cases were female. why did the authors choose just females for normal hearing group? in table 2, its better to add "p values" in the table. Although the authors found significant difference in posturography values but they did not evaluate the balance status by other tests to show its "clinical importance". The figures are difficult to interpret. By the way the study is interesting for me. Reviewer #2: Please give more details for auditory distance perception , make sure that no other dual publication for this paper not occurred , you must follow the research ethical rules for privacy and honesty for patients ****** 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: Yes: Alimohamad Asghari Reviewer #2: Yes:** Salwa mahmoud [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258590.r001
Revision 1
23 Sep 2021 Author Response Dear Professor Alimohamad Asghari and Professor Salwa Mahmoud, Thank you for positive and constructive comments. We revised the paper according to your recommendation. Reviewer #1: The study is interesting but it has some limitations such as small number of participants that authors mentioned. 1) All of the normal hearing cases were female. why did the authors choose just females for normal hearing group? Answer. Thank you for the suggestion. We recruited normal participants regardless of the gender. Most of the attendee were unexpectedly female. In addition, all the attended males did not fulfil our inclusion criteria (mainly high pure tone threshold). The following descriptions were added. L288 “Second, the normal participants in the present study were all female. We recruited normal-hearing paid volunteers regardless of the gender. Most of the attendee were female, and none of the male attendees met the inclusion criteria. This may be due to the high prevalence of age-related hearing loss in men (18). Recent posturographic study showed that the gender difference was statistically significant (19). Despite that, females are known to be more prone to falls than males. It may be preferable to recruit gender-matched control participants in further studies.” 2) In table 2, it is better to add "p values" in the table. Answer. We made the table according to the previous report (ref #5, Negahban et al., 2017). As the reviewer #1 suggested, it is better to include the result of statistics in the table. The problem is that we used three-way repeated measures and mixed factorial ANOVA. We like this procedure, but it is not easy to include the results of ANOVA in the table. The following is a reformatted table that include the results of ANOVA. This table is informative but I feel it too busy. I like the original table, but am ready to use the reformatted table if the reviewer like the new one. HA users NH participants Mean (SEM) Mean (SEM) Sound(+) Sound(-) Sound(+) Sound(-) Total Area Significant interaction between the sound condition and foam condition (F [1, 18] =7.04, p = 0.02), between sound condition and eye condition (F [1, 18] = 5.77, p = 0.03), and between eye and foam conditions (F [1, 18] = 96.66, p < 0.01) Eyes open-Rigid surface 3.04(0.87) 2.98(0.96) 2.21(0.30) 1.97(0.27) Eyes open-Foam surface 5.41(1.44) 5.76(1.35) 4.79(0.66) 5.56(0.63) Eyes closed-Rigid surface 5.48(1.04) 6.11(1.20) 4.09(0.69) 4.52(0.43) Eyes closed-Foam surface 25.47(3.73) 28.94(3.58) 18.66(1.65) 21.90(1.61) Maximum displacement, ML Significant interaction among the eye condition, sound condition, and between-group factor (F [1, 18] = 6.19, p = 0.02) Eyes open-Rigid surface 2.25(0.33) 2.31(0.32) 1.98(0.18) 1.88(0.17) Eyes open-Foam surface 3.06(0.39) 3.24(0.50) 2.78(0.16) 3.27(0.19) Eyes closed-Rigid surface 3.62(0.36) 3.59(0.42) 2.80(0.29) 3.40(0.20) Eyes closed-Foam surface 7.83(0.49) 8.12(0.60) 6.54(0.41) 7.48(0.33) Maximum displacement, AP Significant main effect of sound condition (F (1, 18) = 7.95, p = 0.01) and a significant interaction between eye condition and foam condition (F (1, 18) =70.88, p < 0.01) Eyes open-Rigid surface 2.80(0.40) 2.79(0.52) 2.65(0.23) 2.41(0.16) Eyes open-Foam surface 3.76(0.40) 3.78(0.31) 3.69(0.36) 4.34(0.34) Eyes closed-Rigid surface 3.46(0.35) 3.66(0.37) 3.21(0.32) 3.32(0.22) Eyes closed-Foam surface 7.01(0.50) 7.88(0.58) 6.83(0.33) 6.99(0.54) Sway Velocity Significant main effect of sound condition (F (1, 18) = 9.06, p < 0.01) and a significant interaction between the eye condition and foam condition (F (1, 18) =74.75, p < 0.01) Eyes open-Rigid surface 1.48(0.23) 1.73(0.30) 1.11(0.07) 1.11(0.08) Eyes open-Foam surface 2.29(0.35) 2.35(0.25) 2.08(0.11) 2.21(0.15) Eyes closed-Rigid surface 2.43(0.24) 2.55(0.20) 1.80(0.16) 2.01(0.19) Eyes closed-Foam surface 6.52(0.80) 6.93(0.80) 5.10(0.55) 5.27(0.30) Velocity, ML Significant main effect of sound condition (F (1, 18) = 6.53, p = 0.02) and a significant interaction between the eye condition and foam condition (F (1, 18) =66.08, p < 0.01) Eyes open-Rigid surface 0.80(0.11) 0.94(0.14) 0.62(0.05) 0.64(0.05) Eyes open-Foam surface 1.21(0.17) 1.27(0.14) 1.12(0.05) 1.18(0.06) Eyes closed-Rigid surface 1.35(0.14) 1.43(0.15) 1.00(0.09) 1.23(0.12) Eyes closed-Foam surface 3.32(0.42) 3.61(0.43) 2.91(0.33) 2.92(0.14) Velocity, AP Significant main effect of sound condition (F (1, 18) = 10.44, P < 0.01) and a significant interaction between the eye condition and foam condition (F (1, 18) =94.10, P < 0.01) Eyes open-Rigid surface 0.80(0.15) 0.94(0.20) 0.62(0.05) 0.61(0.05) Eyes open-Foam surface 1.22(0.20) 1.25(0.08) 1.19(0.07) 1.28(0.11) Eyes closed-Rigid surface 1.31(0.16) 1.36(0.10) 1.02(0.11) 1.01(0.10) Eyes closed-Foam surface 3.51(0.38) 3.66(0.37) 2.80(0.18) 2.95(.019) 3) Although the authors found significant difference in posturography values but they did not evaluate the balance status by other tests to show its "clinical importance". Answer. Thank you for the advice. I agree with the referee that it is better to include participants with vestibulopathy. We tested the participants with vestibulo-ocular reflex test and head impulse test to exclude severe vestibulopathy, as was conducted in the previous study (ref #4, Vitkovic et al., 2016). However, we found that participants with vestibulopathy cannot complete the experiment with foam surface (ref #9, Oikawa et al., 2018). Based on this finding, we conducted the present study only in those with normal vestibular functions. The following descriptions were added. L79 “None of them showed abnormalities in vestibular test including vestibulo-ocular reflex test and head impulse test.” L294 “All the participants were of normal vestibular function. Further studies exploring dynamic and reverberant conditions and vestibulopathy participants are warranted.” 4) The figures are difficult to interpret. Answer. In this study, we used three-way repeated measures and mixed factorial ANOVA. The figures were made to represent the results of the statistics. The figures can be made simple if we use the average and SEM, but it will reduce the individual information. We made the figures so as not to delete the raw data. In addition, we can compare the velocity and displacement in hearing aid users with eyes closed (Fig 1(a) and left column of Fig 2). I will appreciate it if the reviewers accept the figures in the present form. Reviewer #2: 1) Please give more details for auditory distance perception Answer. Thank you for the advice. We add more detail about the auditory distance perception. L286 “Second, the normal participants in the present study were all female. We recruited normal-hearing paid volunteers regardless of the gender. Most of the attendee were female, and none of the male attendees met the inclusion criteria. This may be due to the high prevalence of age-related hearing loss in men (18). Recent posturographic study showed that the gender difference was not statistically significant (19). Despite that, females are known to be more prone to falls than males. It may be preferable to recruit gender-matched control participants in further studies.” 2) Make sure that no other dual publication for this paper not occurred Answer. I confirm that no other dual publication for this paper occurred. 3) You must follow the research ethical rules for privacy and honesty for patients Answer. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All the identifying information were removed from the analyzed data. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258590.r002
1 Oct 2021 Decision Letter - Manabu Sakakibara, Editor Effect of hearing aids on body balance function in non-reverberant condition: A posturographic study PONE-D-21-23190R1 Dear Dr. Hiraumi, 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, Manabu Sakakibara, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. 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 Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. 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 Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 7. 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 Reviewer #2: Yes:** Salwa mahmoud https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258590.r003
Formally Accepted
5 Oct 2021 Acceptance Letter - Manabu Sakakibara, Editor PONE-D-21-23190R1 Effect of hearing aids on body balance function in non-reverberant condition: A posturographic study Dear Dr. Hiraumi: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Manabu Sakakibara Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258590.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .