The effect of visual sensory interference during multitask obstacle crossing in younger and older adults

HyeYoung Cho; Shirley Rietdyk

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0302838

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 5, 2023
3 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Sergiy Yakovenko, Editor PONE-D-23-31634The effect of visual sensory interference during multitask obstacle crossing in younger and older adultsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rietdyk, 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 Feb 17 2024 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, Sergiy Yakovenko 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. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. [Yes The results from younger adult participants were previously published (Cho et al., 2019), and are included in the current manuscript as the comparison group for older adults. Cho H, Romine NL, Barbieri FA, Rietdyk S. Gaze diversion affects cognitive and motor performance in young adults when stepping over obstacles. Gait Posture. 2019;73: 273–278. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.07.380] Please clarify whether this publication was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript. 3. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Thank you for the high quality submission. Both reviewers have indicated only minor concerns/comments. Please address these requests in your resubmission. I would also like to add an additional Specific Comment: Ln. 257 “... (speed was not different for high versus low sensory interference)... ” There might be an error here since Fig.5 indicates significant differences related to the sensory interference within young adults and elderly. Moreover, the positive correlation between the speed and interference magnitudes is unexpected within each group. Please discuss this result. [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: Yes 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: Review of PLOS One manuscript: PONE-D-23-31634 Title: “The effect of visual sensory interference during multitask obstacle crossing in younger and older adults” November 1, 2023 General comments: The purpose of this research is to sensory interference alters performance under low levels of cognitive, temporal, and gait demand as well as to determine the effect of age on performance. They also examined learning effect as two blocks of tasks were performed. The study is well-done. The writing style is articulate and flows well. The introduction is in-depth and explains what other studies have done and how this work differs from them. Figure 1 is particularly informative. The methods are clear and provide sufficient detail to allow replication. The statistics are appropriate. The results are well-organized. The discussion is thorough, insightful, and includes the limitations of the study. Specific comments: Introduction: Figure 2 is informative and useful. It is unusual to have such a figure in the introduction rather than in the methods, but I can see how it provides information to clarify your purpose. Methods: because obstacle crossing in older adults was assessed, did participants wear a harness to prevent a fall? Methods: Did you control for shoes? Was the light in the room normally-lit by fluorescent lighting? I’m wondering if ambient light would be a factor. Discussion, line 293: If not in this study, cite the study to which you refer: “In a different gait task, locomotor targeting, sensory interference….” Discussion, line 392, in this usage, should multitask be multitasking? It seems to be a verb here, whereas in other instances you use it as a noun. Reviewer #2: Preliminary Remarks: The reviewer appreciates the authors' efforts in composing this paper and feels privileged to have the opportunity to review the manuscript. The topic is found to be quite interesting, and the paper is well-written. It is hoped that these comments will contribute to enhancing the quality of the paper before its publication. Summary: The study investigates the mutual interference between cognitive and locomotor tasks, specifically the dual-task effects, on an obstacle crossing task in both young and elderly individuals. In one condition, the light cue for a reaction time task was positioned on an obstacle to be crossed. In another condition, this cue was placed away from the obstacle, preventing simultaneous foveation of both the cue and the obstacle. Reaction time was influenced by the sensory interference condition during the obstacle crossing task, but not while standing. Notably, the effect of sensory interference on foot placement varied with age. The authors suggest that the increased distance before the obstacle observed in the elderly during the dual-task condition may relate to their diminished balance recovery capabilities. Strength � The hypotheses are well-rationalized and clearly stated, facilitating easy comprehension of the methods, results, and discussion. � The use of an alpha level of 0.01 is commendable for addressing the issue of multiple comparisons. Major comment � The term "sensory interference," as introduced in the second paragraph of the Introduction, is somewhat broad. While some readers might agree with this classification of the task condition, others could perceive it differently (e.g., as reflecting peripheral/focal vision). Therefore, the reviewer suggests using a more specific term (e.g., RT cue location) when describing the methods and results, to provide clearer and more universally understood what was done in the experiment and how the results were discussed. Minor comments � Line 137: Please provide more detailed characteristics of the elderly participants, including their recruitment source. Were they independently living, community-dwelling, or residing in care homes? � Line 160: Was there any practice session for the RT task in the standing condition or for the obstacle crossing (walking) task? Clarification is needed regarding whether practice was allowed for dual-tasking. � Line 383: The discussion might benefit from considering the relatively low risk of the task as a factor explaining the absence of effect on clearance. Given that the obstacle was designed to collapse upon contact, did this reduce the participants' concern about clearance? ****** 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 Reviewer #2: Yes: Masahiro Shinya ******** [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.0302838.r001
Revision 1
2 Feb 2024 Author Response We thank the reviewers for their time and expertise in completing this review. We have addressed all the comments as outlined below. We believe that addressing the comments has improved the clarity and contribution of this manuscript. Journal requirements: We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. [Yes, The results from younger adult participants were previously published (Cho et al., 2019), and are included in the current manuscript as the comparison group for older adults. Cho H, Romine NL, Barbieri FA, Rietdyk S. Gaze diversion affects cognitive and motor performance in young adults when stepping over obstacles. Gait Posture. 2019;73: 273–278. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.07.380] Please clarify whether this publication was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript. RESPONSE: We apologize for the confusion. Here is a clear description (text also provided in cover letter): • Previous manuscript: Total of 17 younger adult participants. Peer-reviewed and formally published (Cho et al., 2019). • Current manuscript: Total of 31 participants, 17 younger adults and 14 older adults. While the 17 younger adults were published previously, the results for the 14 older adults have not been published elsewhere. The 17 younger adults are used as a comparison group only. • Therefore, the work does not constitute dual publication. Text has been added to the manuscript for clarity (Line 136). Additional Editor Comments: Ln. 257 “... (speed was not different for high versus low sensory interference)... ” There might be an error here since Fig.5 indicates significant differences related to the sensory interference within young adults and elderly. Moreover, the positive correlation between the speed and interference magnitudes is unexpected within each group. Please discuss this result. RESPONSE: We apologize for the confusion. For the comment regarding the possible error in Fig. 5: While there are three levels of sensory interference, only the baseline level was different from the other two levels (high and low sensory interference). We have edited the text to increase clarity. (Lines 263-267) For the comment regarding the positive correlation between the speed and interference magnitudes within each group, I believe you are referring to the unexpected faster speed when sensory interference was in place (both high and low sensory interference) versus the baseline condition. We discuss this in the discussion section, lines: 407-415 Reviewer #1 General comments: The purpose of this research is to sensory interference alters performance under low levels of cognitive, temporal, and gait demand as well as to determine the effect of age on performance. They also examined learning effect as two blocks of tasks were performed. The study is well-done. The writing style is articulate and flows well. The introduction is in-depth and explains what other studies have done and how this work differs from them. Figure 1 is particularly informative. The methods are clear and provide sufficient detail to allow replication. The statistics are appropriate. The results are well-organized. The discussion is thorough, insightful, and includes the limitations of the study. Specific comments: Introduction: Figure 2 is informative and useful. It is unusual to have such a figure in the introduction rather than in the methods, but I can see how it provides information to clarify your purpose. RESPONSE: Thank you for your positive comments. Methods: because obstacle crossing in older adults was assessed, did participants wear a harness to prevent a fall? RESPONSE: Participants did not wear a harness. We have added the following text to the methods to increase clarity. “The obstacle was designed to fall forward if contacted, like a hurdle, to decrease fall-risk. Thus, participants were not harnessed. No one fell in this protocol or in our previous studies with this obstacle design (e.g., Muir et al., 2015; Becker & Rietdyk, 2022).” (lines 154-157) Methods: Did you control for shoes? Was the light in the room normally-lit by fluorescent lighting? I’m wondering if ambient light would be a factor. RESPONSE: We have added text regarding shoes to increase clarity. “Participants wore comfortable walking or athletic shoes; they were asked to wear the shoes they habitually wear when walking.” See lines 146-147. Each subject wore their own shoes, thus, within a subject, the shoes were held constant for all conditions. The room was normally-lit; the lighting was constant for all subjects and for all conditions. Therefore, we believe that shoes and lighting did not affect changes in behavior due to manipulations of sensory interference. Discussion, line 293: If not in this study, cite the study to which you refer: “In a different gait task, locomotor targeting, sensory interference….” RESPONSE: Changes made as requested (reference was Berg and Murdock 2011). See line 304 Discussion, line 392, in this usage, should multitask be multitasking? It seems to be a verb here, whereas in other instances you use it as a noun. RESPONSE: Changes made as requested. See line 407 Reviewer #2: Preliminary Remarks: The reviewer appreciates the authors' efforts in composing this paper and feels privileged to have the opportunity to review the manuscript. The topic is found to be quite interesting, and the paper is well-written. It is hoped that these comments will contribute to enhancing the quality of the paper before its publication. Summary: The study investigates the mutual interference between cognitive and locomotor tasks, specifically the dual-task effects, on an obstacle crossing task in both young and elderly individuals. In one condition, the light cue for a reaction time task was positioned on an obstacle to be crossed. In another condition, this cue was placed away from the obstacle, preventing simultaneous foveation of both the cue and the obstacle. Reaction time was influenced by the sensory interference condition during the obstacle crossing task, but not while standing. Notably, the effect of sensory interference on foot placement varied with age. The authors suggest that the increased distance before the obstacle observed in the elderly during the dual-task condition may relate to their diminished balance recovery capabilities. Strength The hypotheses are well-rationalized and clearly stated, facilitating easy comprehension of the methods, results, and discussion. The use of an alpha level of 0.01 is commendable for addressing the issue of multiple comparisons. RESPONSE: Thank you for your positive comments. Major comment The term "sensory interference," as introduced in the second paragraph of the Introduction, is somewhat broad. While some readers might agree with this classification of the task condition, others could perceive it differently (e.g., as reflecting peripheral/focal vision). Therefore, the reviewer suggests using a more specific term (e.g., RT cue location) when describing the methods and results, to provide clearer and more universally understood what was done in the experiment and how the results were discussed. RESPONSE: We agree that what we manipulated was the RT cue location, and we assumed that this manipulation resulted in high vs low sensory interference. However, when naming the condition, we were left with long labels: “RT cue on obstacle”, and “RT cue away from obstacle” which reduced clarity in the results and in the figure legends (it was originally written in this manner, and after feedback, we decided to refer to them more simply as high vs low sensory interference). Further, the reader would not necessarily associate the condition label with the intention (high vs low sensory interference). Thus, we opted to keep the sensory interference label, but have added text to highlight our assumption. (lines 161-163 and lines 467-475) Minor comments Line 137: Please provide more detailed characteristics of the elderly participants, including their recruitment source. Were they independently living, community-dwelling, or residing in care homes? RESPONSE: “The older adults lived independently (i.e., they did not require assistance with daily activities).” We have added the text to increase clarity. (Lines 138-139) Line 160: Was there any practice session for the RT task in the standing condition or for the obstacle crossing (walking) task? Clarification is needed regarding whether practice was allowed for dual-tasking. RESPONSE: Practice sessions for the RT task were in the standing condition. We have edited the text to increase clarity. (Line 168) Line 383: The discussion might benefit from considering the relatively low risk of the task as a factor explaining the absence of effect on clearance. Given that the obstacle was designed to collapse upon contact, did this reduce the participants' concern about clearance? RESPONSE: That is an interesting observation. We have added text to address this idea. “An alternate explanation is that the low-risk/collapsible obstacle resulted in complacency during this lab task and participants did not adjust their foot clearance. However, it seems unlikely that complacency would not affect foot clearance but would affect foot placement. In addition, in previous studies with collapsible obstacles, foot clearance has been altered by visual manipulations (Rhea & Rietdyk, 2011; Rietdyk & Rhea, 2011).” (Lines 399-403) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302838.r002
15 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Sergiy Yakovenko, Editor The effect of visual sensory interference during multitask obstacle crossing in younger and older adults PONE-D-23-31634R1 Dear Dr. Rietdyk, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Sergiy Yakovenko Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you for the high-quality submission to PLoS One. 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: (No Response) ****** 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: (No Response) ****** 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: The authors have addressed my prior concerns and I have no further suggestions or questions on this paper. 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: Jean L. McCrory Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302838.r003
Formally Accepted
29 Apr 2024 Acceptance Letter - Sergiy Yakovenko, Editor PONE-D-23-31634R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rietdyk, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Sergiy Yakovenko Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302838.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 .