The Effects of Running Kinematics on Peak Upper Trunk GPS-Measured Accelerations during Foot Contact at Different Running Speeds

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1- In the summary, the researcher did not present the justifications for the research, and furthermore, they did not compare their results with those of other researchers.

2-The introduction needs to be updated with more recent sources

3-In the results, the researcher failed to compare the outcomes of the utilized technique with other technologies. Additionally, the researcher did not clarify the accuracy of their results, including the margin of error. Furthermore, there was a lack of comparison between the obtained results and those of other studies.

4- The conclusion paragraph lacks clarity in presenting specific points, and in its current state, it appears disorganized.

Author Response

1- In summary, the researcher did not present the justifications for the research, and furthermore, they did not compare their results with those of other researchers. – Thank you for taking to review the manuscript and considering your comments we have made additions to the text to improve clarity of the justification and included further information regarding the results. Please see these as follow:

2-The introduction needs to be updated with more recent sources – Thank you for pointing this out. We have included a further paragraph (lines 35-43) to improve clarity of the introduction with more reference to more recent research studies.

3-In the results, the researcher failed to compare the outcomes of the utilized technique with other technologies. Additionally, the researcher did not clarify the accuracy of their results, including the margin of error. Furthermore, there was a lack of comparison between the obtained results and those of other studies. – Thank you highlighting this. Regarding margin of error, we have now included Actual vs predicted mean differences and 95% limits of agreement as added information in text within our results to address this (197 – 205) We have now also included extra tables of results in the supplementary file (Tables S9-S12).
- With regards to comparing our results to other studies, we have now included an extra paragraph to explain this (lines 342 – 349).

4- The conclusion paragraph lacks clarity in presenting specific points, and in its current state, it appears disorganized. – Thank you providing this feedback. We have now rewritten the conclusion section to improve clarity (lines 364- 379).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The effects of running kinematics, on the peak upper trunk GPS measured accelerations during foot contact at different  running speeds titled paper, tries to determine the effects of running kinematics, on the  peak upper trunk segmental accelerations captured with an accelerometer embedded in a commonly used GPS device.

In the introduction session, the literature could provide a broader view of measuring acceleration such as wearable technologies. Please refer to literature for comparison of other possible acceleration measurement methods and compare the pros and cons of using a GPS only. "Simultaneous validation of wearable motion capture system for lower body applications: over single plane range of motion (ROM) and gait activities" Biomedical Engineering / Biomedizinische Technik, vol. 67, no. 3, 2022, pp. 185-199. https://doi.org/10.1515/bmt-2021-0429 . They should also mention that if they were using a wearable MOCAP system if they could gain more information when compared to GPS results. Economical advantage of use of GPS versus this affordable low cost system could also be highlighted for practical reasons.

In this study authors made use of the GPS system and the Vicon system by synchronizing their data. In the long term they want to use the GPS system only to understand the lower body running kinematics, without use of Vicon system. However, one of the limitations of this study is that they performed the study on a thread mill, if the runner is not running on the thread mill, they might not be running on a straight line and this could complicate the math’s. They should mention directional changes affects of the runner or mention that these results are valid on a linear track only.

The other issue is they did not include the force platform and hence GRF effects since the speed is high, GRF effects should be incorporated and why they could not include GRF should be explained better.

Blant Altman graphs for each speed for all the participants should be given as a table or as a supplementary file if this not possible to insert in the text.

Author Response

The effects of running kinematics, on the peak upper trunk GPS measured accelerations during foot contact at different  running speeds titled paper, tries to determine the effects of running kinematics, on the  peak upper trunk segmental accelerations captured with an accelerometer embedded in a commonly used GPS device. – Thank you for taking to review the manuscript and considering your comments we have now made additions to the text to improve clarity of the justification and included further information regarding the results and limitations of the study. Please see these as follows: :

In the introduction session, the literature could provide a broader view of measuring acceleration such as wearable technologies. Please refer to literature for comparison of other possible acceleration measurement methods and compare the pros and cons of using a GPS only. "Simultaneous validation of wearable motion capture system for lower body applications: over single plane range of motion (ROM) and gait activities" They should also mention that if they were using a wearable MOCAP system if they could gain more information when compared to GPS results. Economical advantage of use of GPS versus this affordable low cost system could also be highlighted for practical reasons. – Thank you pointing this out and for providing the reference to a previous study. We agree that more depth is needed in the introduction to provide a better justification for our research and have now included extra information in the introduction to clarify this (Lines 35 – 43).. The practical justification why the GPS based accelerometer was used within this study is because GPS devices are the most commonly used athlete tracking sensor employed within team sports. These devices are originally used to track an athlete’s workload by measuring the quantity (distance travelled) and rate (speed) that an athlete outputs during a training/game session. Therefore, the rationale is to provide practitioners working these devices a methodology to gain more information from their GPS devices by allowing them to measure an athlete’s running style with data that is already available to them. The justification for above, another paragraph is now added to the manuscript in line 58 – 63.

In this study authors made use of the GPS system and the Vicon system by synchronizing their data. In the long term they want to use the GPS system only to understand the lower body running kinematics, without use of Vicon system. However, one of the limitations of this study is that they performed the study on a thread mill, if the runner is not running on the thread mill, they might not be running on a straight line and this could complicate the math’s. They should mention directional changes affects of the runner or mention that these results are valid on a linear track only. – Thank you for this comment. We agree that this is a very important practical message that needs to be explained. The address this a paragraph text has now been included in the discussion (lines 352-356).

The other issue is they did not include the force platform and hence GRF effects since the speed is high, GRF effects should be incorporated and why they could not include GRF should be explained better - Thank you for highlighting this. We agree that the inclusion of GRF would have provided added more variables to analyse. Unfortunately, we did not have a treadmill with an integrated force platform available to us. Testing the participants over multiple speeds was important to the study to be able to observe the kinematic changes associated with running at higher speeds. It was also important for us to control this with a treadmill to understand the residual effect of running speed on our results. So therefore, we chose to only include kinematic variables from treadmill running as opposed to conducting overground trails utilising a ground embedded force platform. This has now been further explained in the discussion (lines 356-363).

Blant Altman graphs for each speed for all the participants should be given as a table or as a supplementary file if this not possible to insert in the text. – Thank you for providing this feedback. We agree more details of the results would be beneficial to the reader. Actual vs predicted mean differences and 95% limits of agreement have now been included in text (197 – 205) and also included extra tables of results in the supplementary file (Tables S9-S12).

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I want to thanks the authors for their contribution in this field of research. 

Specific comments 

I think that the abastract is well written. However, i propose to include further significant findings in the chapter of results. 

Introduction 

Please include in the last paragraph the main hypothesis of your study. 

Materials and Methods 

Is there any declaration about the inclusion of participants in this study? Please include it. 

Results and discussion i think that are well written. 

Conclusions 

Please include further practical applications. 

Author Response

I want to thanks the authors for their contribution in this field of research - Thank you for taking to review the manuscript and considering your comments we have made additions to the text to improve the abstract, introduction, methods and conclusion. Please see below:

Specific comments 

I think that the abstract is well written. However, i propose to include further significant findings in the chapter of results. - Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that more of the results should be included in the abstract and we have now added this to the text (lines 19 – 23).

Introduction 

Please include in the last paragraph the main hypothesis of your study. - Thank you for highlighting this. We have now included a hypothesis for the study (lines 109 – 111).

Materials and Methods 

Is there any declaration about the inclusion of participants in this study? Please include it. – Thank you for pointing this out. This has now been included (See lines 122-125)

Results and discussion i think that are well written. 

Conclusions 

Please include further practical applications. – Thank you for this comment. We have now extended our conclusion to provide further clarity (See lines 364 – 379)

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

can be accepted

Author Response

Thank you