Sonification of Motor Imagery in the Basketball Jump Shot: Effect on Muscle Activity Amplitude

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is interesting and develops on the idea of performing motor imagery in a sensory-enriched environment. The Introduction gives mostly sufficient exposition of the topic, the Results and methods are sound. The primary effect is large and statistically proven. There are several areas in the manuscript that need the authors’ attention:

 

1) In the Introduction, the authors strongly imply that muscle activation during motor imagery is the single possible mechanism for skill improvements. Yet, contemporary views about the mechanisms of motor imagery are skewed towards predominantly central explanations (within-cortical) – see https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4328(02)00313-3. This should be at least mentioned in the Introduction and the Discussion. Consider reading a modern discussion about muscle activation during imagery, e.g., https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546251.003.0006

On line 47, the “psycho-neuro-muscular theory” is cited wrongly: Carpenter (1894) or Jacobson (1930) or Richardson (1967) should be cited.

 

2) Method (specifically section 2.4. Procedures) lacks experimental details about following topics:

- instructions given to the participants about imagery

- details of imagery content

- number of repetitions and duration of motor imagery

- level of subject's prior expertise in both basketball and motor imagery. 

Consider also adding diagrams explaining procedures day-by-day and repetition count. 

 

3) Figures 1-3 need additional work:

 

Fig.1 - axes should be labeled, the title within the figure itself is not needed, the upper panel (with basketball player) should be of better quality—the reader could barely make out the specifics of the movement.

 

Fig.2-3 - distorted text and numbers, negative-values are on OY-axis should be removed

 

Fig. 3 - Lines with the significance markers take too much space. Consider reworking this figure into table.

 

 

4) Some grammatical typos are present, e.g.:

-line 47 no dashed needed in “psycho-neuro-muscular”, i.e.: psychoneuromuscular

-line 75 "of auditory imagery in about perception"

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I think they should reduce the text somewhat. Some concepts are reiterated in the introduction, making references to the same authors. I think they can clip some information from the instruments. It would be interesting to analyze for future studies if only the auditory system is better than the visual one or what happens is that there is a potentiation of the results. In the discussion, it would be interesting if the results were compared with a more current article, or less than 5 years old.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The underlying study presents a research study on the effect of AudioVisual pattern on muscle activity amplitude during mental imagery. The study recruited 25 female students and had them engaged in mental imagery in three different conditions - No pattern, Visual pattern, and AudioVisual pattern - with the aim of studying the effect of these patterns on muscle activity. The results of the study indicate that muscle activity amplitude was highest in the AudioVisual-kinesthetic and AudioVisual-internal conditions, and a positive correlation was observed between Visual-kinesthetic imagery ability and muscle activity amplitude in the AudioVisual pattern.

The study's design is clear and its methodology appears to be appropriate for the research question being asked. The results are also presented in an organized manner and the correlation between the Visual-kinesthetic imagery ability and muscle activity amplitude is an interesting finding. However, a critical analysis of the study would also look at its limitations.

1.      First, the sample size used in this study is quite small with only 25 female participants. This may not be representative of the general population and therefore limits the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the study did not control for the participants' previous experience or expertise with the basketball jump shot skill, which could have influenced the results.

2.      Also, the study only recruited female participants which can be a limitation, since the results cannot be generalized to male population. Furthermore, the study does not provide information about the possible physiological mechanisms that could explain the observed relationship between muscle activity amplitude and the audio-visual pattern. The study's conclusion, stating that auditory information is closely related to kinesthetic sense of movement, is also based on correlation and could be further supported with more experimental design or a more complex model.

3.      A suggestion for the author of this research to increase the worth of the paper would be to cite some relevant studies that have investigated similar topics or used similar methods. This can help to provide a broader context for the study and show how it fits into the existing body of research on the topic. For instance, the author can cite papers that have used similar techniques to measure muscle activity, such as surface electromyography (EMG) or papers that have used similar mental imagery techniques. Also, papers that have studied the effect of audiovisual patterns on cognitive tasks or muscle activity can be cited to show the relevance and the background of the research. Additionally, the author can cite papers that have investigated the role of auditory information in motor control, such as the relationship between auditory cues and muscle activity during motor tasks. This will not only increase the worth of the paper but also provide a comprehensive view for the readers. Here are a few indicators: a). Computerized Multidomain EEG Classification System: A New Paradigm; b). Motor Imagery BCI Classification Based on Multivariate Variational Mode Decomposition; c). A matrix determinant feature extraction approach for decoding motor and mental imagery EEG in subject specific tasks; d). Exploiting Asymmetric EEG Signals with EFD in Deep Learning Domain for Robust BCI; e). Identification of motor and mental imagery EEG in two and multiclass subject-dependent tasks using successive decomposition index.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx