Impact of Music Selection on Motivation and Performance during Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing
, Ana Orlić 1, Milan Matić 1, Slavoljub Uzunović 2, Saša Bubanj 2,*, Tatiana Dobrescu 3,*, Marija Macura 1 and Dejana Popović 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study titled "Impact of Music Selection on Motivation and Performance During Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing" investigates the effects of synchronized motivational music on exercise motivation and performance in individuals with varying fitness levels. The research involved two groups of female participants: students from the Faculty of Sport and Physical Education and middle-aged adult women exercising recreationally. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) was conducted using a treadmill and gas analysis equipment, with the motivational qualities of music assessed using the BMRI-2 questionnaire. The study found that synchronized motivational music significantly improved cardiopulmonary parameters such as peak VO2, VO2 at the anaerobic threshold, peak heart rate, and test duration, while reducing perceived exertion. The study concluded that music serves as a key motivational element, facilitating more economical movement and enhancing cardiopulmonary performance. The findings are interesting, however, some specific concerns should be addressed before publication.
1) The use of SPSS software for statistical analysis is appropriate, but the rationale behind choosing specific tests (e.g., paired samples t-test) should be better explained, if possible.
2) Please check if the sample size is large enough compared to other typical methods, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Please consider discussing this limitation in the discussion section.
3) Also, the procedure for selecting preferred music tracks could be described in more detail to ensure replicability of the study.
4) Please check if all the abbreviations (e.g., VO2) are well defined in the text before their first use.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for contributing to the substantial improvement of our manuscript.
Please find the detailed response and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted file, attached.
Kind regards,
the authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLine 56-57 - This sentence should be improved, since there is a high prevalence that strength may be a capacity that better relates to health and longevity.
Methods
Does de BORG scale was teached? how? This should be described.
How were the sessions performed? Does both groups performed both sessions? It's not clear enough. Please re-write the section of procedure, this should be able to replicate the study.
Results
Why show a graphic with differences between both groups? What's the purpose of that?
Discussion
Line 317 to 330 - You talk about data that is not presented in the results. Please clarify. Does the music could be the only influence in the duration of the test?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for contributing to the substantial improvement of our manuscript.
Please find the detailed response and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted file, attached.
Kind regards,
the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I really enjoyed reading your article. The rules of conducting the test are very well explained. The article is also well prepared in terms of ethics. Congratulations.
However, I would like to ask you to reword the Conclusions section. Your hypotheses should be resolved here, and they remain only mentioned in the text in the Results section. You can explain the verification of your hypotheses to readers in an easier way.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for contributing to the substantial improvement of our manuscript.
Please find the detailed response and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted file, attached.
Kind regards,
the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsEverything was corrected and seems fine.
