Expertise-dependent differences in mental representation metrics of pas de bourrée

Pia Wittenbrink; Mira Janzen; Antonia Jennert; Benjamin Strenge

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0292133

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 21, 2023
12 Jul 2023 Decision Letter - Stergios Makris, Editor PONE-D-23-11698Expertise-Dependent Differences in Mental Representation Metrics of Pas de BourréePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Strenge, 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 Aug 26 2023 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: https://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, Stergios Makris 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 in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “We acknowledge support for the publication costs by the Open Access Publication Fund 333 of Bielefeld University and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).” We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that 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: “The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 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: Partly ******** 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: I appreciate the information relating cognitive skills (mental representations stored in long-term memory) to motor control. Most of the literature that I review in the area of perceptual-cognitive-motor performance lacks such detailed analysis of cognitive contributions to efficient performance of complex goal-directed actions. Despite a lack of familiarity with ballet, I clearly see the potential value of using the same approach for analysis of other sport-specific movement sequences. Concerns that I think should be addressed: no mention of Institutional Review Board approval of the study procedures, nor is there any mention of the manner in which participants were recruited/selected. There is no information pertaining to power analysis for determination of the minimum number of participants need to avoid a Type II error. I do not consider power analysis to be an essential component of the research process, but some explanation is needed for the manner in which the 18 participants were recruited (i.e., 3 perfectly balanced groups of 6 participants each). Reviewer #2: The manuscript was well written. I have only two comments that the authors should address them in the manuscript. 1. considering the small sample size, this study should report as pilot study or preliminary study. 2. Please provide sample size estimation in the manuscript. ****** 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: Gary B. Wilkerson, EdD, ATC Reviewer #2: 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292133.r001
Revision 1
18 Aug 2023 Author Response Academic Editor: Dear Dr Makris, Thank you very much for handling our manuscript and enabling us to provide a revised version. We have been committed to carefully considering all remarks to optimize the quality of the manuscript. Please find our responses to each of your remarks below. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Authors’ Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have revised the manuscript based on PLOS ONE's style requirements you attached and made the appropriate corrections in the manuscript. This includes corrections of the capitalization of the headings as well as the file naming for the figures. 2. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Authors’ Response: We have removed the paragraph from the Acknowledgments Section, and we would kindly ask you to amend this correspondingly in our online submission by adding the following sentence to the Funding Statement: “We acknowledge support for the publication costs by the Open Access Publication Fund of Bielefeld University and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. Authors’ Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We inserted the full name of the ethics committee of Bielefeld University, who gave written approval to our study, in the subsection “Execution” of the “Materials and methods” section (line 154), as follows: “The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Bielefeld University (EUB).” 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Authors’ Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the captions for the supporting information files and provided in-text citations matching these captions (see lines 139 f., 152, 219 f., 339 f., 341 f.). 5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. Authors’ Response: We have reviewed our reference list for completeness and correctness. During the revision process, we added three new references into the text, as well as in the reference list. These are the following references: (28.) Akoglu H. User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2018;18(3):91–93. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001. (29.) Mayerl J, Fröhlich M, Pieter A, Kemmler W. In: Bivariate statistische Verfahren. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2020. p. 57–72. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-61039-8_6. (30.) Alsaqr AM. Remarks on the use of Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients in assessing relationships in ophthalmic data. African Vision and Eye Health. 2021;80(1):10. doi:https://doi.org/10.4102/aveh.v80i1.612. Reviewer 1: Dear Dr. Wilkerson, Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your appreciative and constructive comments. We found the advice helpful and understandable, and have incorporated the suggestions into our revision. We believe this improved the quality of the manuscript notably. Please find our responses to each of your remarks below. 1. No mention of Institutional Review Board approval of the study procedures Authors’ Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We inserted the full name of the ethics committee of Bielefeld University, who gave written approval to our study, in the subsection “Execution” of the “Materials and methods” section (line 154), as follows: “The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Bielefeld University (EUB).” 2. No mention of the manner in which participants were recruited/selected Authors’ Response: We included further information regarding the recruitment and selection of the participants in the subsection “Participants” of the “Materials and methods” section (line 137 f.), as follows: “In order to establish three perfectly balanced expertise groups of six participants each, a total of 18 participants aged between 19 and 33 years were recruited.” As well as in the “Execution” of the “Materials and methods” section (line 155 f.), as follows: “Participants were recruited in March 2021 at the campus of Bielefeld University and from a ballet school in Bielefeld (Germany), gave written informed consent to participate in the study…” 3. There is no information pertaining to power analysis for determination of the minimum number of participants need to avoid a Type II error. I do not consider power analysis to be an essential component of the research process, but some explanation is needed for the manner in which the 18 participants were recruited (i.e., 3 perfectly balanced groups of 6 participants each). Authors’ Response: Thank you very much for pointing out that we had not addressed this issue in our initial submission. We have performed a Power Analysis and provide detailed information on the results in the revised subsection “Participants” of the “Materials and methods” section (lines 134 ff.), as follows: “A power analysis with SPSS Version 29.0.0 estimated that a minimum sample size of 16 participants would have been necessary to determine significant Spearman correlation values of ρ = .7 or higher, which are commonly interpreted as “strong” [28–30], with at least 80% chance. In order to establish three perfectly balanced expertise groups of six participants each, a total of 18 participants aged between 19 and 33 years were recruited.” Reviewer 2: Thank you very much for taking the time to review and for your commendatory and constructive comments upon our manuscript. We found the advice helpful and understandable, and have incorporated the suggestions into our revision. We believe this improved the quality of the manuscript notably. Please find our responses to each of your remarks below. 1. Please provide sample size estimation in the manuscript. Authors’ Response: Thank you very much for pointing out that we had not addressed this issue in our initial submission. We have performed a Power Analysis and provide detailed information on the results in the revised subsection “Participants” of the “Materials and methods” section (lines 134 ff.), as follows: “A power analysis with SPSS Version 29.0.0 estimated that a minimum sample size of 16 participants would have been necessary to determine significant Spearman correlation values of ρ = .7 or higher, which are commonly interpreted as “strong” [28–30], with at least 80% chance. In order to establish three perfectly balanced expertise groups of six participants each, a total of 18 participants aged between 19 and 33 years were recruited.” 2. considering the small sample size, this study should report as pilot study or preliminary study. Authors’ Response: We understand that the sample size, which was attained under constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic, may appear comparatively small. However, due to the fact that this participant number already exceeded the minimum sample size estimated by power analysis and yielded highly significant results, we tend to not classify the study as a mere pilot or preliminary study. Nevertheless, we agree that the sample size needs to be considered in interpreting the results of our study. Therefore, we have added a corresponding additional remark in the limitations of our study (lines 296 ff.): „Although the participant number exceeded the minimum sample size estimated by power analysis, future larger studies could facilitate the determination of more reliable estimates of the actual population values.” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_BS.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292133.r002
13 Sep 2023 Decision Letter - Stergios Makris, Editor Expertise-dependent differences in mental representation metrics of pas de bourrée PONE-D-23-11698R1 Dear Dr. Strenge, 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, Stergios Makris 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: (No Response) 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: After a thorough comparison of the original manuscript content with that of the revised version, I have no further concerns about the work's suitability for publication. 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: Yes: Gary B. Wilkerson, EdD, ATC Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292133.r003
Formally Accepted
25 Sep 2023 Acceptance Letter - Stergios Makris, Editor PONE-D-23-11698R1 Expertise-dependent differences in mental representation metrics of pas de bourrée Dear Dr. Strenge: 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. Stergios Makris Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292133.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 .