Visual Demands of Walking Are Reflected in Eye-Blink-Evoked EEG-Activity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study purports to measure the activity of cortical neurons in natural environments during walking. The authors have used eye-blink evoked electroencephalographic activity that is normally removed as noise in such recordings, in a very novel way. They use this activity as a measure of the visual load during activity that uses the motor cortex during walking. In addition to this they have cleverly used an auditory stimulation paradigm to provide the cognitive load. The study is carefully thought out and is extremely convincing of the hypothesis put forward by the authors: that eye-blinks can provide information regarding the visual load which in its turn was affected by the difficulty of the somato-motor task of walking on disparate surfaces. Eye-blinks also revealed the cognitive load of the auditory stimulation. All in all this is a very interesting paper and I recommend its publication, subject to some very minor edits in the manuscript.

Author Response

Replies are in file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Visual demands of walking are reflected in eye-blink evoked EEG-activity

(1711871)

(Review)

 

Main message of the article

The article by Wascher and colleagues entitled “Visual demands of walking are reflected in eye-blink evoked EEG-activity”, explores the viability of eye-blink-related activity as a method to enable event-related EEG activity. The authors observed that blink-related EEG activity discriminates for different levels of mental load during walking.

 

General Judgment Comments

The EEG analysis in the research is well-conducted and appropriate for the research goals. Despite so, no information on data usability is provided. Furthermore, it is not clear how the adequate sample size was calculated and decided. In the results section, figures are not informative since they are too small and do not provide information about significative results. Results are often not reported following the standard format. The IRB number of the study is not specified.

 

I would recommend for Major Revision.

 

Major Issues

-       The Abstract section does not provide information on the statistical results. Please clarify.

-       Do not refer to the people enrolled in the study as “subjects”. Replace “subjects” with “participants” throughout the manuscript.

-       It is not clear how the authors determined the right sample size. Please clarify.

-       Please specify the number of the IRB protocol.

-       Figures are scarcely visible and do not provide information on the significant results.

-       The EEG data processing looks satisfying and well conducted (good work!)

-       In the Results section, please specify the exact p values.

-       The Discussion section is too lenghty. I would suggest shortening it.

-       In the manuscript, there are no information about attrition rate and data usability. The authors could describe the degree for which movements impacted the EEG recording.

-       The manuscript does not include a section in which the general importance of the study and its translational value is discussed. Please add it.

-       In the last sentence of the Abstract, please explain why the research is fitting the scope of the journal.

 

Minor Issues

-       The meaning of the last sentence in the Abstract is not clear. Please specify.

-       Line 42: “in applied EEG research”. What do the authors mean for “applied EEG research”? Please specify

 

Final comments

I would recommend for Major Revision.

Author Response

Replies are in file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

NA

Author Response

we provide a careful rework of all passages highlighted by the reviewer

Author Response File: Author Response.docx