The Relationship between Personality and Postural Control in Young Adults—A Pilot Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

GENERAL COMMENTS:
The authors present an experimental and original paper observing the impact of personality on the postural control of young adults. The postural control has been evaluated under four different tasks for all subjects. Several personality traits have been identified. In summary, the authors found that there is an association between postural control and personality traits.

 

This area has received a very little attention in the literature concerning personality and postural control, therefore, warrants further examination. The manuscript presented is also concise, and well-written. Overall, the manuscript is written and organized fairly well. It follows the logical sequence of research purpose, methodology, and discussion of the results. Despite this strength, There are several areas of the manuscript which need to be clarified and improved significantly and I have some comments that need to be addressed by the authors and listed below.

 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

Introduction. The authors should clearly present their hypothesis and the rational behind it should be better linked in this section.

Materials and methods. The authors should specify if a statistical power test has been done a priori to assess the number of subject needed (seems not and authors present the number of subjects as a limit in the discussion).

Initially, the authors present characteristics for all subjects (age, weight, height). However, subjects were then separated in two groups (Group H and Group D) for comparisons. The authors should present the anthropometric characteristics for each groups and analyse if there is differences between groups for these parameters. Indeed, it has been clearly shown that there is a direct relationship between some anthropometric characteristics (especially body weight) and postural control. Data (mean ± SD) for each postural parameters (4 conditions) for both groups should be presented in a specific table. Correlation analyses should next follow these analyses and presented results.

Discussion. Authors should discuss their results. Indeed, conditions challenging the postural control (eyes closed versus eyes open and standing barefoot versus one leg standing) are not really discussed.

• Should personality be considered as a predictor of postural control?
• When postural control is challenged (with/without vision or challenging the base of support), how and why one personality trait should be more affected than another one?
• What are the interests of a group comparison versus the relationship between a personality score and a postural variable?
• Limits and future research paragraphs should be improved.

Author Response

Thank you very much for evaluating our paper. Detailed responses are in the appendix.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear reviewers, the article entitled "Impact of personality on postural control in young adults – a pilot study" has been revised.

First of all, I would like to congratulate you for such a good job done. It seems to me that the article presents a very well elaborated order and appropriateness to the context.

In the introduction I think it is necessary to go a little deeper into the effect of postural control in young people. I think that the literature review should be more profound. 

On the other hand, the objectives of your research should be clearer and above all, better justified. I mean by this idea, it is important to devote space to justify the "knowledge gap" that exists in the literature and that therefore explains the need for your research.

Methodology. 

I must acknowledge my shortcomings as a reviewer in interpreting the variety of mathematical formulas that are put forward in the research.  Please check that everything is correct in this regard.

I believe that your methodology needs a specific section where the protocol followed is shown with images. In this type of research it is essential to show with real images the protocol followed. Please review the guidelines of the journal for this purpose.

The results, in my opinion, are well done

The discussion in lines 319-330 should be improved. For example, they state that there are no previous studies that relate to emotion. What emotions? fear is not an emotional state? I think you should review more deeply this section of the discussion to gain credibility in your assertions.

In the conclusion, please be less categorical, don't you think that you are making very big statements for a pilot study? For example, "These findings have important implications for understanding the neuromechanics that control healthy balance and highlight the need to recognize the potential contributions of psychological and physiological factors to balance."

Seems to me too big a statement for a pilot study. Please soften the significance of your results. 

After reading the full paper. My recommendation is therefore for further review. However, I am convinced that you will have no problem integrating all the changes I have suggested.

Congratulations on your work

Author Response

Thank you very much for evaluating our paper. Detailed responses are in the appendix.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

• Introduction - is it necessary to use Table no. 1 in this chapter? I think a brief overview of the Big-Five model and a reference is enough for this model.
• On lines 81-83, the authors specify that the purpose of the research is:''This study aimed to explore the relationships between postural control assessed by nonlinear measures and the Five-Factor Model of personality''. in the title of paper the authors say: Impact of personality on postural control in young adults – a pilot study. My question is why didn't the authors use in the title this aspect related to the relationship between the two variables, i.e personality and postural control, don't you think that this title is more appropriate?
• Additionally, I think it is necessary for the authors to highlight very clearly, in this chapter, what is the novelty of this study.
• Regarding the recruitment of subjects, the authors do not specify whether they wanted to participate more in this study. In the initial phase, 33 people participated or there were several interested people and in the end these subjects remained. Please present in more detail how was done the selection of the people.
• The IPIP-NEO-FFI-50 test by whom was it validated? is there any text reference for this test? Also, what was the score for this personality assessment tool? It is very important for readers to understand these things very well.

Author Response

Thank you very much for evaluating our paper. Detailed responses are in the appendix.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been improved and all comments addressed.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have substantially improved the work, responding to almost all the requirements made by the reviewer.

Therefore, the work after a revision of format and language is ready to be published in its current format