The Navigation Ability Test (NAT 2.0): From Football Player Performance to Balance Rehabilitation in Chronic Unilateral Vestibular Loss
, Cristiano Balzanelli 3, Maurizio Bavazzano 4 and Andrea Laborai 5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments are attached, to be open with Adobe PDF reader.
Overall the manuscript is clear and the study is interesting. The Authors should shuffle some sections which are int he discussion but in my opinion belongs to the intro and methodology section.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
AUTHOR’S REPLY TO MANUSCRIPT (audiolres-1673700)
We carefully checked the English with a native English speaker, we checked the punctuation of the text, reviewed the references, completed all the points requested by the reviewers.
Here below are the point-by-point replies to the reviewers.
Dear Reviewer1,
Thank you so much for your valuable review. We provided a point-by-point answer to your comments.
- Line 76, page 2: Add more about sports. Few more references.
Done. We added more info about sports and references.
- Line 169, page 5: Would move this to the intro.
Done. We moved this part to the intro.
- Line 175, page 5: point here. (typo).
Done. We checked punctuation.
- Line 188, page 5: (typo).
Done. We checked punctuation.
- Line 221, page 6: The descriptions of each test should be in the methodology section.
Done. We moved the description of each test in the methodology section.
- Line 237, page 6: Can you be specific which type of training?
Done. We moved this part in the methodology section and we specified the NAT 2.0 training.
- Line 286, page 9: I would make clearer the great possibility to integrate this for pre-post rehab to quantify the patient 's improvements.
Done. In the conclusions we specified NAT 2.0 perspectives in pre- and post-rehab.
Dear Reviewer2,
Thank you so much for your valuable review. We provided a point-by-point answer to your comments.
- lines 157 to 159 should go into discussion
In this part we described the executive modality of Task 1 and Task 2 and we maintained it in the methodology section. However, following your instructions, we reconsidered and discussed this part in the discussion section. - In the discussion, the first paragraphs look like review literature, I felt the lack of a better relationship with the results found. I suggest that at the beginning of the discussion address your main results.
That is, a reorganization of the discussion is necessary to value the study presented.
We revisited all the discussion section, emphasizing the relationship with our results.
Brescia, 2022, 29th of April
Best regards,
The Authors.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting topic that highlights the tendency to investigate mechanisms to improve the rehabilitation of patients with vestibular dysfunction using the Navigation Ability Test (NAT 2.0).
The authors do a good job of organizing the manuscript, with research design appropriate, methods properly described, results are clearly presented, but can improve on the following items:
1. lines 157 to 159 should go into discussion
2. In the discussion, the first paragraphs look like review literature, I felt the lack of a better relationship with the results found. I suggest that at the beginning of the discussion address your main results.
That is, a reorganization of the discussion is necessary to value the study presented.
Author Response
AUTHOR’S REPLY TO MANUSCRIPT (audiolres-1673700)
We carefully checked the English with a native English speaker, we checked the punctuation of the text, reviewed the references, completed all the points requested by the reviewers.
Here below are the point-by-point replies to the reviewers.
Dear Reviewer1,
Thank you so much for your valuable review. We provided a point-by-point answer to your comments.
- Line 76, page 2: Add more about sports. Few more references.
Done. We added more info about sports and references.
- Line 169, page 5: Would move this to the intro.
Done. We moved this part to the intro.
- Line 175, page 5: point here. (typo).
Done. We checked punctuation.
- Line 188, page 5: (typo).
Done. We checked punctuation.
- Line 221, page 6: The descriptions of each test should be in the methodology section.
Done. We moved the description of each test in the methodology section.
- Line 237, page 6: Can you be specific which type of training?
Done. We moved this part in the methodology section and we specified the NAT 2.0 training.
- Line 286, page 9: I would make clearer the great possibility to integrate this for pre-post rehab to quantify the patient 's improvements.
Done. In the conclusions we specified NAT 2.0 perspectives in pre- and post-rehab.
Dear Reviewer2,
Thank you so much for your valuable review. We provided a point-by-point answer to your comments.
- lines 157 to 159 should go into discussion
In this part we described the executive modality of Task 1 and Task 2 and we maintained it in the methodology section. However, following your instructions, we reconsidered and discussed this part in the discussion section.
- In the discussion, the first paragraphs look like review literature, I felt the lack of a better relationship with the results found. I suggest that at the beginning of the discussion address your main results.
That is, a reorganization of the discussion is necessary to value the study presented.
We revisited all the discussion section, emphasizing the relationship with our results.
Brescia, 2022, 29th of April
Best regards,
The Authors.
