PONE-D-23-43363The Effect of Internal and External Audiovisual Imagery on Learning Badminton Long Serve SkillPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Parimi,

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 manuscript has been assessed by 3 reviewers and their comments are available below. They feel the manuscript would benefit from thorough copyediting for proper English language usage and grammar, more methodological details and justification as well as improvements made to the discussion. Could you please carefully revise the manuscript to address all the comments made by the reviewers? 

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 04 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,

Annesha Sil, PhD

Associate 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 note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

3. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

[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

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: Referring to PONE-D-23-43363

Title: The Effect of Internal and External Audiovisual Imagery on Learning Badminton Long Serve Skill

This study aims to investigate the effect of internal and external audiovisual imagery on learning badminton long serve skill. It is explores the influence of different motor imagery methods on motor learning and performance. It's a very interesting topic and valuable for educational implications in sport. The unique auditory model used in this research (based on which the characteristics kinematics of the movement has been converted into sound) and its use in motor imagery is the new approach of this research in motor imagery. Below are some suggestions that should be considered by the authors of the manuscript:

Abstract

In the abstract of the manuscript, the result of comparing the internal and external imagery groups should be reported.

Introduction

In the introduction, it is suggested to refer to the researches that have investigated the effect of sonification-based intervention on performance and motor learning.

Research Method

� In line 202, refer to the source of sonification sandbox software

� It is better to present the research protocol in the form of a table

Research findings

In the findings section, a number of effect sizes not reported. Be sure to report effect sizes for all pairwise comparison.

Discussion and conclusion

The discussion of this manuscript is well written and the explanation of the results is good based on previous researches and the proposed hypotheses. It seems that the effect of the intervention in this research is first on the quality of motor imagery and then on performance and motor learning. Therefore, it is better to mention this topic at the end of the discussion.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript aimed to evaluate the effects of internal and external audiovisual imagery on learning badminton long serve skill and the results showed that audio-visual internal imagery have a significant effect on learning badminton long serve skill. The manuscript suffers from major and minor problems as follows:

1. First of all, I need to point out that the language of the article is not appropriate and should be improved.

2. Please add the sampling method and statistical analysis methods to the abstract.

3. In the article, some terms are not used correctly, it is necessary to check all specialized terms again. For example, in some places you should use performance instead of execution.

4. The background section in the introduction is not well written and the results of some consecutive studies are reported. It is suggested to be rewritten.

5. In the last paragraph of the introduction, use retention instead of “retetion”. Check the spelling of words throughout the article.

6. Why did you use novice participants in the present study? Is it effective to use imagery at this stage and before learning the motor pattern?

7. In the method section, it is necessary to mention the sampling method and the method of determining the sample size.

8. Did you use the statistical method of mixed design ANOVA in the acquisition phase? It seems that the analysis of 4 groups * 5 stages of the test with repetition of the last factor has been used.

9. It is suggested to remove the tables and report the results in text form.

10. The quality of the figures in the article is not suitable. It is suggested to improve the quality of the presentation and to mention the error bar and significant differences in the figures.

11. In the first paragraph of the discussion, only mention the purpose and results. It is not necessary to mention all the details of the method of research.

12. The discussion section needs to be reorganized. It is necessary to compare the results of the study with previous studies and then explain the findings.

Reviewer #3: The work entitled "The Effects of Internal and External Audio-Visual Imagery on Learning Badminton Long Serve Skill" aimed to investigate the effects of motor imagery on motor learning. The study compared four conditions derived from the association of two independent variables: internal and external motor imagery, and visual and audio-visual imagery groups. The authors identified that there was no significant difference among groups during practice. However, the audio-visual-internal imagery group demonstrated better performance in the retention and transfer tests. Unfortunately, due to some inconsistencies in the rationale, internal coherence (rationale, methods, result discussion) analysis, and discussion, I suggest the non-acceptance of the work for publication. However, I believe that if the authors address the following topics, they could have a better outcome in further submission. I hope that my feedback can help them.

It has been noted that there are some mistakes in the manuscript, and it is recommended that the English language be assessed by a native speaker.

Title: Authors should focus on their two independent variables, namely internal versus external motor imagery and audiovisual versus visual motor imagery. The title seems to focus only on internal x external.

Introduction:

Line 52: Learning is not related to lifelong processes in the Motor Behavior area. Instead, Motor Development studies investigate motor behavior across the lifespan.

Line 54: Please use the traditional motor learning concept, "a series of processes associated with practice or experience that led to a relatively permanent change in the capacity to perform motor skills." I suggest reading "Motor Learning and Control" by Schmidt to verify why the words in the concept are important.

Line 57: What exactly does "accelerate learning" mean? Does it refer to acquiring motor skills quickly? Definitely, it is not assessed in motor learning. Maybe enhancing the process is a better alternative.

Line 61: The authors did not have neuroimage data to introduce or discuss neurophysiological mechanisms. Classic motor learning studies provide sufficient evidence and mechanisms at the behavioral level of analysis to support this study.

Line 65: Psycho Neuromuscular Theory is not the best option for the mechanisms that could influence motor learning by motor imagery. Please revisit classic books on motor learning (Schmidt, Magill, etc.).

Line 67: Avoid long paragraphs like this one as they complicate the reader's understanding.

Line 110: Again, keep the mechanisms at the behavioral level, given that the authors do not have data about neuroexcitability.

Line 121: It is a little confusing as the introduction does not guide the reader to investigate the inclusion of audio in visual imagery from internal and external perspectives. For me, the introduction needs to be rewritten to focus specifically on the gap in the literature regarding internal versus external and audio versus audiovisual imagery. The rationale is not strong enough and needs to be recreated.

Research Methods

Sample Size Calculation:

The manuscript lacks information on sample size calculation. Authors are encouraged to provide details regarding how the sample size was determined for the study.

Line 128: Clarify how each inclusion criterion was assessed. For instance, specify the methods used to confirm that participants were right-handed and free from neurological, hearing, visual (mention if a visual acuity test was employed), motor (explain the assessment method), attention (mention if MoCA - Montreal Cognitive Assessment - was utilized), and depression disorders (indicate if Beck Depression Scale was administered).

Line 129:- The English needs improvement. A suggested revision is: "All participants provided written consent to participate in the research."

Line 206:- Consider using the term "post-test" instead of "acquisition test." In general, in motor learning studies acquisition phase refers to phase across pre-test, blocks of practice and post-test.

Line 210): Include additional information in the inclusion criteria, such as: "Participants who scored above 70% on the mental rotation test were selected to participate in the research."

Lines 222-239: The description appears to be redundant and repetitive. Authors are advised to revise and streamline this section for clarity and conciseness.

Line 235: Provide a clear explanation of the terms "internal" and "external." Consider introducing this information in the introduction section for better contextual understanding.

Line 44 and Throughout Manuscript: Avoid using "attempt"; use "trial" instead. Ensure consistency in language usage across the entire manuscript.

Statistical Methods:

What exactly was the measure? Radial error? Mean error? Variable error? Please revisit Schmidt et al 2019, or Magill e Anderson 2021, to ensure the measures are ok.

The authors explain the analyses here, but they describe the analyses in the results section again. Please be sure that all explanations about the analyses (and how it align with your rational and aims) are explained here, just here.

Research Findings:

I strongly recommend considering the incorporation of error bars in your graphs. This addition is crucial for a comprehensive analysis of your results, providing valuable insights into the variability and precision of the data.

It is essential to ensure a standardized use of colors across groups in your line graphs. Consistency in color representation enhances visual clarity and facilitates accurate interpretation.

Authors might consider avoiding the inclusion of a table with ANOVA results. Providing a descriptive summary in the text and using line graphs to indicate statistical significance could be sufficient for clarity and conciseness.

I recommend reconsidering the reanalysis of data based on the internal and external, and audiovisual x visual factors. It is crucial to address potential confounding variables appropriately. Analyzing subgroups together might not be suitable when there are two independent variables influencing the outcome. Separate analyses for each variable could provide more accurate insights.

Performing a two-way ANOVA (post-test x retention; groups) may reveal essential aspects about the consolidation effect of imagery. This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of how groups retain, lose, or enhance their improvements during the consolidation phase, potentially providing richer insights compared to a one-way ANOVA in retention or transfer alone.

Discussion Enhancement Response:

The first two paragraphs in the Discussion section should be removed. There is no need to reiterate methodological details in this section.

- It's important to keep the discussion focused on the behavioral level since no neurophysiological measures were employed.

- Emphasize that the audio-visual intervention did not show an effect during the acquisition phase; its impact was consolidation-dependent. See Kantak and Winstein (2012) to provide a framework for understanding the phases of motor memory affected by your intervention.

Line 373: You do not have cognitive effort measure to state any intervention effect on that during practice. Please avoid this extrapolation.

- Ensure accuracy in referencing Challenge Point Hypothesis to avoid confusion. Challenge Point is not related to your study object.

- Clarify the distinction between learning plateau and performance plateau in line 398. Use the appropriate term to convey the intended meaning.

- Acknowledge the speculative nature of the sentence in line 404, given that the data do not support the inference made.

- Your study is not a implicit motor learning study (line 416).

- Ensure consistency and accuracy in referencing Schmidt's name throughout the text (there is another author with similar name).

- Clearly differentiate between Gibson's Ecological Approach and mirror neuron theory (information processing). Ensure that inferences align with a coherent theory of motor behavior. There is no option to speculate the effect of your intervention using the two theories simultaneously.

- Break down the lengthy paragraph at 410 into more digestible sections for improved readability.

- Clearly state that the absence of a sample size calculation is a limitation, as opposed to considering the number of participants a limitation. Kinematic measure absence is not a limitation; it is a characteristic.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Giordano Marcio Gatinho Bonuzzi

**********

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review of PLOS ONE-D-23-43363.docx

PONE-D-23-43363R1The Effect of Internal and External Imagery on Learning Badminton Long Serve Skill: The role of visual and audiovisual imageryPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Parimi,

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 24 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,

M. Shamim Kaiser, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

NA

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

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: All of my concerns are addressed by the authors. And therefore, I have no other comments in this stage.

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: Jalil Moradi

**********

[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.

The Effect of Internal and External Imagery on Learning Badminton Long Serve Skill: The role of visual and audiovisual imagery

PONE-D-23-43363R2

Dear Dr. Parimi,

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,

M. Shamim Kaiser, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Please read the paper very carefully to eliminate typos.

Improve the quality of the figures

Reviewers' comments: