A measure of event-related potentials (ERP) indices of motivation during cycling

Rémi Renoud-Grappin; Damien Gabriel; Emmanuelle Broussard; Laurent Mourot; Julie Giustiniani; Lionel Pazart

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312981

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 16, 2024
16 Oct 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312981.r001
18 Mar 2025 Decision Letter - Vilfredo De Pascalis, Editor PONE-D-24-46303A Measure of Event-Related Potentials (ERP) Indices of Motivation During CyclingPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gabriel, 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. Both reviewers are positive with the quality of the submitted study. However, one reviewer raised minor comments that should be addressed. I invite the authors to address the suggested minor changes as soon as possible and resubmit for acceptance. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 02 2025 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, Vilfredo De Pascalis 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. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 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 : Both reviewers are positive with the quality of the submitted study. However, one reviewer raised minor comments that should be addressed. I invite the authors to address the suggested minor changes as soon as possible and resubmit for acceptance. [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: This study is very interesting. The participants were required to complete two distinct sessions: one in which they did not engage in cycling, and the latter session was conducted on a cycloergometer. The authors found that the P300 amplitude was influenced by the act of cycling, exhibiting a reduction during the cycling session. A positive correlation was identified between P300 amplitude and the proportion of difficult choices, particularly under conditions of low reward probability. The热for, this artical suggests that P300 may serve as a neural marker of motivation. Reviewer #2: Dear Editor, Thank you very much for inviting me to review this manuscript. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the evaluation of this study. This study has significant value in terms of methodological innovation and practical application potential, but further improvement is needed in terms of experimental design rigor, depth of result interpretation, and literature support. Below are my detailed comments and suggestions for the authors' consideration: Q1: Study Design Limitations The study design has some limitations that should be addressed. The sample size is relatively small, with only 20 participants. This may restrict the generalizability and external validity of the findings. Suggestion: It would be beneficial to include a power analysis to determine whether the number of studies included is adequate for drawing strong conclusions. Q2: The potential impact of variables on the results In the discussion, the authors mention that "some studies have shown that the amplitude of the P300 wave is greater in the cycling condition than in the resting condition, while other studies have reported the opposite or no difference." It is unclear whether the resting conditions in these other studies are comparable to the one used in this study. The authors have noted that sitting on a bicycle without cycling may induce a unique psychological effect. Despite the use of a crossover design, potential confounding variables at different time points (e.g., environmental noise, differences in participants' psychological states) and individual states (e.g., fatigue levels, circadian rhythms) may vary. These factors could influence participants' emotions, cognition, and physiological responses, thereby affecting the study results. Suggestion: The authors should provide additional information on the control methods for environmental variables and psychological states in the experimental design or discuss the potential impact of these factors on the results. Q3: High-Resolution Presentation of the Experimental Procedure If possible, please provide a high-resolution version of the experimental procedure (i.e., Figure 3). This would facilitate better understanding of the study for other readers. Q4: Insufficient Details in EEG Data Processing The manuscript mentions the use of ICA to remove eyeblink artifacts but does not specify how movement artifacts (e.g., electromyographic interference) caused by cycling were handled. Suggestion: Please provide more detailed information on the handling of movement artifacts in the EEG data processing section. Q5: Clarity and Conciseness of Language and Expression Some paragraphs are rather lengthy and lack clarity in logic, which may hinder readers' comprehension. For example, the description of the EEfRT task could be more concise, avoiding redundancy and repetition. Suggestion: Further language refinement is recommended to simplify long sentences and enhance logical coherence. Q6: Insufficient Depth in Analysis of Limitations While the study has identified some limitations, the analysis of certain limitations is not sufficiently in-depth. For example, it mentions that conducting the experiment at different times may affect the results but does not further explore the specific mechanisms by which time factors influence resting heart rate, emotional state, and cognitive performance. Suggestion: It is suggested that each limitation be analyzed more thoroughly to explore its potential multifaceted impacts on the study results. Q7: Insufficient Update of References Some of the references are outdated and may not reflect the latest research developments in the field. For example, "Mayer,John D.,et Yvonne N.Gaschke. 1988", "Oldfield, R.C. 1971”, “Quattrone, George A. 1985”, and “Sutton, S.,M.Braren, J.Zubin, et E.R.John. 1965”, etc. Suggestion: It is recommended to update the references to include the latest (within the past 5 years) literature in order to enhance the timeliness and scientific validity of the research. Overall, the study provides valuable insights into the use of EEG to measure motivation during cycling. However, addressing the above points would significantly enhance the robustness and clarity of the research. I look forward to seeing the revised 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: shidong Yang 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.0312981.r002
Revision 1
28 Mar 2025 Author Response First, we would like to thank the reviewers for their precious comments. Q1: Study Design Limitations The study design has some limitations that should be addressed. The sample size is relatively small, with only 20 participants. This may restrict the generalizability and external validity of the findings. Suggestion: It would be beneficial to include a power analysis to determine whether the number of studies included is adequate for drawing strong conclusions. Response: We agree with the reviewer's comment. Regarding the generalizability of the findings, partial eta squared values are presented along with p values relative to FRN and P300. Moreover, one of the goals of this feasibility study was to help refining the sample size estimate for a full-scale study. We added the following text in the conclusion: "The results of this feasibility study demonstrated the viability of measuring motivation-related event-related potentials (ERPs) from an effort-based decision-making task while engaging in physical exercise. Additionally, the variability in EEG measures helped refine the sample size estimate for the full-scale study, ensuring it is adequately powered to detect meaningful effects. To ensure adequate statistical power for detecting differences in event-related potentials (ERPs) between cycling and no-cycling conditions, with an effect size of d = 0.2, a significance level of α = 0.05, and a power of 0.80, a required sample size of 50 participants will be necessary." Q2: The potential impact of variables on the results In the discussion, the authors mention that "some studies have shown that the amplitude of the P300 wave is greater in the cycling condition than in the resting condition, while other studies have reported the opposite or no difference." It is unclear whether the resting conditions in these other studies are comparable to the one used in this study. The authors have noted that sitting on a bicycle without cycling may induce a unique psychological effect. Despite the use of a crossover design, potential confounding variables at different time points (e.g., environmental noise, differences in participants' psychological states) and individual states (e.g., fatigue levels, circadian rhythms) may vary. These factors could influence participants' emotions, cognition, and physiological responses, thereby affecting the study results. Suggestion: The authors should provide additional information on the control methods for environmental variables and psychological states in the experimental design or discuss the potential impact of these factors on the results. Response: We added additional information on how we controlled some environmental variables, especially the time of the day, and the interval between sessions: "The order of the sessions was randomly assigned to each participant and both sessions took place in the afternoon. The interval between two sessions was kept as short as possible, depending on the participant's availability, in order to avoid variations in their psychological state as well as variations in the external environment (e.g. temperature)." Moreover, the inclusion criteria were also designed to reduce variations in emotional state that could affect the EEfRT: "Since anhedonia, depression or other psychiatric conditions have been shown to impact EEfRT performance (Treadway et al. 2009), individuals with a psychiatric history were excluded from this study." We also modified a sentence about the time of day in the discussion, which was initially confusing: " Furthermore, the time of the day is known to impact Heart Rate Variability (Choi et al., 2008). Here, the experiment was conducted at different times in the afternoon, which may have resulted in varying resting heart rates among participants (Choi et al., 2008)" Q3: High-Resolution Presentation of the Experimental Procedure If possible, please provide a high-resolution version of the experimental procedure (i.e., Figure 3). This would facilitate better understanding of the study for other readers. Response: We have recreated Figure 3 so that it has better resolution Q4: Insufficient Details in EEG Data Processing The manuscript mentions the use of ICA to remove eyeblink artifacts but does not specify how movement artifacts (e.g., electromyographic interference) caused by cycling were handled. Suggestion: Please provide more detailed information on the handling of movement artifacts in the EEG data processing section. Response: Some additional information has been added in the methods section: "To remove artifacts caused by movement, and any other non-physiological factors, EEG epochs were cleaned with a visual trial-by-trial inspection." We also discuss the possible impact of muscular artifacts in the discussion: "While it cannot be ruled out that the observed amplitude differences are residual pedalling-related artefacts, one study found that there was no correlation between muscle artefacts and P300 amplitude (Zink et al. 2016)." Q5: Clarity and Conciseness of Language and Expression Some paragraphs are rather lengthy and lack clarity in logic, which may hinder readers' comprehension. For example, the description of the EEfRT task could be more concise, avoiding redundancy and repetition. Suggestion: Further language refinement is recommended to simplify long sentences and enhance logical coherence. Response: We tried as much as possible to simplify the description of the EEfRT: "The EEfRT, adapted from Treadway et al. (2009) for ERP analysis (Giustiniani et al., 2020; Figure 3), aims to maximize points by completing easy or hard tasks. Task selection depends on the potential reward and the probability of receiving it. In this study, the task included 120 trials. The easy task required 70% of the participant’s calibrated maximum button presses with the right index finger within 7 seconds, awarding 1 point upon success. The hard task required 90% of the maximum presses using the left-hand auricular finger within 14 seconds, earning 1.5, 3, 4.5, or 6 points. The hard task’s time limit was reduced from 21 to 14 seconds to accommodate the increased trial count. Reward probabilities (10%, 50%, or 90%) applied equally to both tasks. Figure 3 outlines the trial sequence: -A 1-second screen displayed the reward probability and point values for easy (1 point) and hard (variable points) tasks. -A circle appeared, prompting task selection. -Participants pressed buttons to fill a bar before time expired. -Success was indicated by a cross (1 s) followed by feedback (2 s): a green square for a win, a red square for a loss. Failure resulted in a red square for 2 seconds." Q6: Insufficient Depth in Analysis of Limitations While the study has identified some limitations, the analysis of certain limitations is not sufficiently in-depth. For example, it mentions that conducting the experiment at different times may affect the results but does not further explore the specific mechanisms by which time factors influence resting heart rate, emotional state, and cognitive performance. Suggestion: It is suggested that each limitation be analyzed more thoroughly to explore its potential multifaceted impacts on the study results. Response: Following the reviewer's suggestion, we compared the emotional state of all participants at the beginning of the cycling and no-cycling sessions. No difference was found: "BMIS scores were similar at the beginning of both the cycling and no-cycling sessions." Regarding the experiment that took place at different times of the day, a reanalysis of our data showed that no recording took place in the morning. 4 of the 40 recordings took place early in the afternoon and 36 in the middle/late afternoon. Finally, there is not much difference and the time of the recordings are too similar to compare the data in groups. We nevertheless used correlations measures to explore the mechanisms by which time factors influence mood and scores at the EEfRT. We added the following text in the methods section: “Spearman correlations were used to assess the relationship between the hour of the day the subjects participated in the experiment, BMIS scores, and the number of difficult choices made in the EEfRT.” In the results section: “We also examined whether the time of the experiment could influence emotional state and cognitive performance. A relationship was found between the hour of the day at which participants participated in the experiment and BMIS scores, but only in the no-cycling condition (rs = 0.51, p = 0.02 for the pleasant-unpleasant scale; rs = 0.50, p = 0.02 for the aroused-calm scale). No correlation was found between the hour of the day at which participants participated in the experiment and the number of difficult choices made in the EEfRT.” And in the discussion: " Furthermore, the time of the day is known to impact Heart Rate Variability (Choi et al., 2008). Here, the experiment was conducted at different times in the afternoon, which may have resulted in varying resting heart rates among participants (Choi et al., 2008). Moreover, a relationship was observed between the time of the afternoon at which subjects participated in the experiment and mood scores, but only in the no-cycling condition, making the results difficult to interpret." Q7: Insufficient Update of References Some of the references are outdated and may not reflect the latest research developments in the field. For example, "Mayer,John D.,et Yvonne N.Gaschke. 1988", "Oldfield, R.C. 1971”, “Quattrone, George A. 1985”, and “Sutton, S.,M.Braren, J.Zubin, et E.R.John. 1965”, etc.Suggestion: It is recommended to update the references to include the latest (within the past 5 years) literature in order to enhance the timeliness and scientific validity of the research. Response: We understand the importance of incorporating up-to-date literature. However, some of the references in our manuscript, such as Oldfield (1971), are foundational and remain the standard citations for specific concepts, tools, or methodologies (e.g., the Edinburgh Handedness Questionnaire or the BMIS). As these works are still widely referenced and have not been replaced by more recent alternatives, they are necessary to provide historical and methodological context. It is the same with Mayer and Gaschke 1988, which is the reference article for the BMIS. That said, we recognize the value of including recent studies. We changed the reference of Quattrone 1985 to Dang et al., 2020. Regarding the P300, Sutton is the pioneer study, but we also added a more recent reference: Grasso-Cladera et al., 2024. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: ResponseReviewers-DG(1).docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312981.r003
22 Apr 2025 Decision Letter - Vilfredo De Pascalis, Editor A Measure of Event-Related Potentials (ERP) Indices of Motivation During Cycling PONE-D-24-46303R1 Dear Dr. Gabriel, 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, Vilfredo De Pascalis Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Considering that all comments have been properly addressed, we are glad to accept the manuscript for publication. 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 #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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #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 #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 #2: First and foremost, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to the editorial team for entrusting me with the responsibility of reviewing this manuscript. It has been an honor to contribute to the peer-review process of such a respected journal. Having carefully reviewed the authors' responses to my previous comments, I am pleased to report that the revisions submitted are of exceptional quality. The authors have demonstrated remarkable diligence in addressing each concern with thoroughness and scientific rigor. Given the thoroughness of the revisions and the authors' responsiveness to feedback, I am confident that this manuscript now meets the rigorous standards required for publication in your esteemed journal. Once again, I express my deepest gratitude to the editorial team for facilitating this collaborative process, and to the authors for their dedication to scientific excellence. I look forward to the opportunity to contribute further to the journal's peer-review process in the future. ****** 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 #2: Yes: Jiayue Cui ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312981.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Vilfredo De Pascalis, Editor PONE-D-24-46303R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gabriel, 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 You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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 Prof. Vilfredo De Pascalis Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312981.r005

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 .