A Specific Test of Starting Blocks: Intrasession and Intersession Reliability of Isometric Strength Using a Functional Electromechanical Dynamometer

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer comments.

This paper presents a significant study evaluating the reliability of isometric force measurements in starting blocks using a Functional Electromechanical Dynamometer (FEMD). Considering the importance of starting blocks in sprint performance, this research is both timely and valuable. In particular, this study is valuable as it explores the reliability of a sport-specific measurement tool that could have important implications for the training and performance enhancement of track athletes. While the research is generally well-structured, I would like to suggest a few areas for improvement.

 

Introduction:

- Some sentences are quite long and complex (e.g., lines 59-63). Breaking these into shorter, more focused sentences would improve readability.

 

- Adding a brief concluding paragraph to the introduction that synthesizes the importance of the study, the gap in the literature it aims to address, and how the results could impact sprint training and performance assessment would be beneficial.

 

Methods:

- A more detailed description of the FEMD equipment is needed. It would be helpful to provide information such as the manufacturer, model, and accuracy specifications.

 

- Regarding the isometric force test, where it states "maintaining maximum horizontal pressure for 6 seconds," it would be beneficial to provide a rationale for why 6 seconds was chosen.

 

Results and Discussion:

 

- Some additional discussion on why the dominant leg position shows the highest reliability would be valuable. Adding an explanation from a biomechanical perspective would enhance this section.

 

- Regarding the finding that the dominant leg position is the most reliable, a brief discussion on how this relates to actual sprint performance would be insightful.

- There may be limitations in applying this method in real-world settings due to mechanical equipment requirements. It would be beneficial to address how these limitations might be overcome, or highlight any particular advantages this method has compared to existing measurement techniques.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you again for your contributions. Each comment has been specifically addressed and changes to the manuscript have been highlighted in yellow.

 

This paper presents a significant study evaluating the reliability of isometric force measurements in starting blocks using a Functional Electromechanical Dynamometer (FEMD). Considering the importance of starting blocks in sprint performance, this research is both timely and valuable. In particular, this study is valuable as it explores the reliability of a sport-specific measurement tool that could have important implications for the training and performance enhancement of track athletes. While the research is generally well-structured, I would like to suggest a few areas for improvement.

 

Introduction:

 

Comment: Some sentences are quite long and complex (e.g., lines 59-63). Breaking these into shorter, more focused sentences would improve readability.

Answer: The sentences have been rewritten “Currently, few studies in the scientific literature assess the kinetic parameters of performance during the application of force in a specific cueing gesture. This is because no technology currently exists to assess this particular gesture [13]. The functional electromechanical dynamometer (FEMD) is an innovative tool that addresses this gap. It allows us to quantify, control, and manipulate the training load or manifestations of strength. This can be done directly and immediately, both in average and peak forces, using its different assessment modes [14].”

 

Comment: Adding a brief concluding paragraph to the introduction that synthesizes the importance of the study, the gap in the literature it aims to address, and how the results could impact sprint training and performance assessment would be beneficial

Answer: a concluding parahraph has been added “This study addresses a critical gap in the literature regarding the assessment of force application in sport-specific movements, such as the starting block phase in sprinting. Although the force and technique during the start are pivotal for sprint performance, existing technologies have been limited in their ability to accurately and specifically assess this action. By utilizing a functional electromechanical dynamometer (FEMD), our study aims to provide reliable data on isometric force across different starting block positions. Ultimately, these advancements may lead to improvements in sprint times and performance assessments.”

 

Methods:

Comment:  A more detailed description of the FEMD equipment is needed. It would be helpful to provide information such as the manufacturer, model, and accuracy specifications.

 Answer:  A more detail description of the FEMD has been added “(Myoquality M1, Myoquality Solutions, Granada, Spain) in three different "ready" positions at the starting blocks. The mechanical characteristics of this device include an accuracy of three millimeters for displacement, a variation of 100 g when determining a load, and a sampling frequency of 1000 Hz.”

 

Comment: Regarding the isometric force test, where it states "maintaining maximum horizontal pressure for 6 seconds," it would be beneficial to provide a rationale for why 6 seconds was chosen.

Answer: The starting block phase is a complex movement, involving numerous levers that require sufficient time to produce peak force without excessively fatiguing the central nervous system (CNS). Furthermore, there are references where 5-second isometries have been employed.

 

Kubo, K., Kanehisa, H., & Fukunaga, T. (2001). Effects of different duration isometric contractions on tendon elasticity in human quadriceps muscles. The Journal of physiology, 536(Pt 2), 649–655. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7793.2001.0649c.xd

 

Lee, D., Park, J., & Lee, S. (2014). Isometric contraction of an upper extremity and its effects on the contralateral lower extremity. Journal of physical therapy science, 26(11), 1707–1709. https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.26.1707

 

Results and Discussion:

 

Comment: Some additional discussion on why the dominant leg position shows the highest reliability would be valuable. Adding an explanation from a biomechanical perspective would enhance this section.

Answer: Thanks, an explanation has been added “ The higher reliability observed in the dominant leg position can be attributed to greater neuromuscular efficiency and improved motor control because the dominant leg is typically more engaged in dynamic movements. Additionally, the dominant leg, being more familiar with sport-specific actions, such as the starting block push-off, tends to have a stronger musculature and better coordination, leading to reduced measurement variability. These biomechanical factors optimize the force transmission and contribute to a more consistent performance, thereby explaining the high reliability in this position”

 

Comment: Regarding the finding that the dominant leg position is the most reliable, a brief discussion on how this relates to actual sprint performance would be insightful.

Answer: Thanks, it has been added “Since the dominant leg typically generates a greater and more consistent force during the push-off phase, which significantly contributes to the acceleration phase of a sprint. This reliability in force production ensures a more stable and efficient start, which is crucial for achieving optimal sprint times.”

Comment: There may be limitations in applying this method in real-world settings due to mechanical equipment requirements. It would be beneficial to address how these limitations might be overcome or highlight any particular advantages this method has compared to existing measurement techniques.

Answer: It has been added “However, the mechanical equipment required for this method may be limited in real-world applications; thus, several strategies can mitigate these challenges. Portable versions of FEMD are becoming increasingly available, allowing for field testing rather than being limited to laboratory settings.  Despite these limitations, the proposed method offers distinct advantages over existing techniques, such as the ability to assess force production in sport-specific movements rather than relying on less specific tests such as countermovement jumps and squat strength assessments. This specificity can lead to more accurate assessments of an athlete’s performance capabilities and better training interventions.”

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article  Review 

"A specific test of the starting blocks: intrasession and intersession reliability of isometric strength using a functional electromechanical dynamometer"

 

Abstract

The abstract should be more concise and structured, clearly separating the objectives, methods, results, and conclusions. 

 

The article is generally well-organized and follows a logical structure, which makes it easy to follow the progression of the study from introduction to conclusion.

 

Methodology

The methodology is the core of this study, involving a repeated measures design with eighteen male college students. The participants were subjected to familiarization sessions followed by five testing sessions spaced 72 hours apart. The isometric strength was measured using FEMD in three different positions (bilateral, dominant, non-dominant) of the starting blocks.

 

Study Design

The study employed a repeated measures design to assess the reliability of isometric strength measurements in different starting block positions using a Functional Electromechanical Dynamometer (FEMD). This design is appropriate for reliability studies as it allows multiple measurements of the same subjects over time, thereby controlling for inter-individual variability.

The study used Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) to assess the reliability of the measurements, along with Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) and Minimal Detectable Change (MDC).

 

Participants

Eighteen male college students participated in the study. This homogenous sample helps in reducing variability due to gender differences but limits the generalizability of the findings to a broader population.

 

 

Repeated Measures Design

The use of repeated measures enhances the reliability of the findings by controlling for inter-individual differences, thus providing a clearer picture of the intrasession and intersession reliability.

Participant Familiarization

Familiarization sessions before the actual testing ensure that participants are accustomed to the procedures, which helps in reducing variability due to learning effects and enhances the reliability of the measurements.

Controlled Testing Conditions:

Conducting tests under similar environmental conditions and at the same time of day helps minimize external factors that could influence the results, thereby increasing the reliability of the measurements.

Use of FEMD

The Functional Electromechanical Dynamometer is a sophisticated device that allows for precise measurement of isometric forces, making the data collection process robust and reliable.

 

Participant Demographics

The study exclusively involved male college students, which limits the applicability of the findings to other populations, such as female athletes. Including a more diverse participant pool would improve the generalizability of the results. 

 

Lack of Detailed Protocol Description

The article could benefit from a more detailed description of the testing protocols, including specific instructions given to participants, to allow for better replication of the study.

 

The explanation of Figure 1 and Figure 2 could be more detailed to provide a clearer understanding of the experimental setup.

 

Consistency in Terminology

There are instances of inconsistent terminology, such as "intersession" vs. "inter-session." Ensuring consistency in terminology throughout the article would improve clarity.

 

Line 209 - negible - it is the same as no statistical significance?

 

Line 377 - Taking into account - Considering

 

 

Conclusion

The article provides valuable insights into the reliability of isometric strength measurements in different starting block positions using a Functional Electromechanical Dynamometer. The methodology is robust, with careful consideration of participant familiarization and controlled testing conditions. However, improvements in sample size, demographic diversity, and language clarity would enhance the study's overall quality and applicability. The findings have practical implications for training and performance assessment in sprinting, highlighting the importance of reliable measurement tools in sports science.

The conclusion section should succinctly summarize the key findings and their implications.

 

Addressing these aspects would further strengthen the evidence base and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in this field.

 

 

Revisit the format of references

16. Sánchez-Sánchez, A. J.; Chirosa-Ríos, L. J.; Chirosa-Ríos, I. J.; García-Vega, A. J.; Jerez-Mayorga, D. Test-retest reliability of a functional electromechanical dynamometer on swing eccentric hamstring exercise measures in soccer players. PeerJ, 2021, 9,

 

16. Sánchez-Sánchez, A. J.; Chirosa-Ríos, L. J.; Chirosa-Ríos, I. J.; García-Vega, A. J.; Jerez-Mayorga, D.. Test-retest reliability of a functional electromechanical dynamometer on swing eccentric hamstring exercise measures in soccer players. PeerJ,  2021, 9:e11743. DOI 10.7717/peerj.11743 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Spelling Errors

Several spelling errors need correction, such as “weigh” instead of “weight” (line 90) and “nominant” instead of “dominant” (line 150). These errors, although minor, detract from the professionalism of the article.

 

Grammar and Syntax

Some sentences could be rephrased for better clarity. For example, "A repeated measures design was used to evaluate the intrasession and intersession reliability of isometric force of three different starting block position" could be revised to "A repeated measures design was used to evaluate the intrasession and intersession reliability of isometric force in three different starting block positions."

 

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

Dear reviewer,

thank you again for your contributions. Each comment has been specifically addressed and changes to the manuscript have been highlighted in yellow.

 

Article  Review 

"A specific test of the starting blocks: intrasession and intersession reliability of isometric strength using a functional electromechanical dynamometer"

 

Abstract

Comment: The abstract should be more concise and structured, clearly separating the objectives, methods, results, and conclusions. 

Answer: Thanks, it has been corrected.

 

 

The article is generally well-organized and follows a logical structure, which makes it easy to follow the progression of the study from introduction to conclusion.

 

Methodology

The methodology is the core of this study, involving a repeated measures design with eighteen male college students. The participants were subjected to familiarization sessions followed by five testing sessions spaced 72 hours apart. The isometric strength was measured using FEMD in three different positions (bilateral, dominant, non-dominant) of the starting blocks.

 

Study Design

The study employed a repeated measures design to assess the reliability of isometric strength measurements in different starting block positions using a Functional Electromechanical Dynamometer (FEMD). This design is appropriate for reliability studies as it allows multiple measurements of the same subjects over time, thereby controlling for inter-individual variability.

The study used Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) to assess the reliability of the measurements, along with Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) and Minimal Detectable Change (MDC).

 

Participants

Eighteen male college students participated in the study. This homogenous sample helps in reducing variability due to gender differences but limits the generalizability of the findings to a broader population.

 

 

Repeated Measures Design

The use of repeated measures enhances the reliability of the findings by controlling for inter-individual differences, thus providing a clearer picture of the intrasession and intersession reliability.

Participant Familiarization

Familiarization sessions before the actual testing ensure that participants are accustomed to the procedures, which helps in reducing variability due to learning effects and enhances the reliability of the measurements.

Controlled Testing Conditions:

Conducting tests under similar environmental conditions and at the same time of day helps minimize external factors that could influence the results, thereby increasing the reliability of the measurements.

Use of FEMD

The Functional Electromechanical Dynamometer is a sophisticated device that allows for precise measurement of isometric forces, making the data collection process robust and reliable.

 

Participant Demographics

The study exclusively involved male college students, which limits the applicability of the findings to other populations, such as female athletes. Including a more diverse participant pool would improve the generalizability of the results. 

 

Lack of Detailed Protocol Description

 

Comment: The article could benefit from a more detailed description of the testing protocols, including specific instructions given to participants, to allow for better replication of the study.

Answer: a more detail description has been added “Subjects were positioned on the starting blocks in an elevated stance, feet firmly on the blocks and toes touching the tartan. A slight knee flexion was maintained to allow for balance and positioning of the hands on the starting line in the 'ready' position. This posture also facilitated a slight horizontal preload against the blocks. Prior to recording, participants were instructed to react to the verbal cue 'ready' followed by the command 'now,' upon which they were to apply maximal horizontal force against the blocks by dynamically pulling and pushing forward for a duration of 6 seconds. It was crucial that participants maintained hand contact with the tartan throughout the exertion period. The FEMD was set to isometric mode and commenced data capture immediately after the 'now' command. During the effort, verbal encouragements were provided to help subjects sustain maximum force output. The FEMD cable was secured to the participant using a robust double securing system. This involved a weightlifting belt with an integrated ring at the waist, padded at the sacrum to avoid discomfort. The end of the FEMD cable was then attached above the sacrum’s base. To minimize horizontal displacement during the test, the belt was further secured by a harness system tailored to the athlete’s upper body, which was adjusted based on their anthropometric data to ensure optimal alignment and safety."

 

 

Comment: The explanation of Figure 1 and Figure 2 could be more detailed to provide a clearer understanding of the experimental setup.

Answer: this section has been rewritten.

 

 

Consistency in Terminology

 

Comment: There are instances of inconsistent terminology, such as "intersession" vs. "inter-session." Ensuring consistency in terminology throughout the article would improve clarity.

Answer: It has been modified

 

 

Comment: Line 209 - negible - it is the same as no statistical significance?

Answer: Thank you for your observation but it is important to clarify that a negligible effect size does not equate to a lack of statistical significance. Effect size and statistical significance measure different aspects of the data. Statistical significance indicates whether an observed effect is likely to be due to chance, typically assessed using a p-value. On the other hand, effect size measures the magnitude of the effect, providing an estimate of the practical significance or impact of the findings.

 

 

 

Comment: Line 377 - Taking into account - Considering

 Answer: It has been modified

 

 

Conclusion

The article provides valuable insights into the reliability of isometric strength measurements in different starting block positions using a Functional Electromechanical Dynamometer. The methodology is robust, with careful consideration of participant familiarization and controlled testing conditions. However, improvements in sample size, demographic diversity, and language clarity would enhance the study's overall quality and applicability. The findings have practical implications for training and performance assessment in sprinting, highlighting the importance of reliable measurement tools in sports science.

Comment: The conclusion section should succinctly summarize the key findings and their implications.

Answer: It has been modified “The FEMD device demonstrates high reliability for assessing force in starting block exits, applicable to both peak and average force measurements. However, a period of familiarization is necessary to obtain reliable results and, at the same time, to consider the position of the athlete, always looking for the use of the dominant leg forward. The absence of differences in peak and average force across conditions suggests the generalizability of these reliability values.

 

 

Addressing these aspects would further strengthen the evidence base and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in this field.

 

 

 

 

Comment: Revisit the format of references

16. Sánchez-Sánchez, A. J.; Chirosa-Ríos, L. J.; Chirosa-Ríos, I. J.; García-Vega, A. J.; Jerez-Mayorga, D. Test-retest reliability of a functional electromechanical dynamometer on swing eccentric hamstring exercise measures in soccer players. PeerJ, 2021, 9,

 

16. Sánchez-Sánchez, A. J.; Chirosa-Ríos, L. J.; Chirosa-Ríos, I. J.; García-Vega, A. J.; Jerez-Mayorga, D. Test-retest reliability of a functional electromechanical dynamometer on swing eccentric hamstring exercise measures in soccer players. PeerJ,  2021, 9:e11743. DOI 10.7717/peerj.11743 

 

Answer: Thanks, it has been modified.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Spelling Errors

 

Comment: Several spelling errors need correction, such as “weigh” instead of “weight” (line 90) and “nominant” instead of “dominant” (line 150). These errors, although minor, detract from the professionalism of the article.

Answer: Thank you for pointing out the spelling errors in the manuscript. We have carefully reviewed and corrected these issues, including changing "weigh" to "weight" and "nominant" to "dominant". We appreciate your attention to detail.

 

 

Grammar and Syntax

Comment: Some sentences could be rephrased for better clarity. For example, "A repeated measures design was used to evaluate the intrasession and intersession reliability of isometric force of three different starting block position" could be revised to "A repeated measures design was used to evaluate the intrasession and intersession reliability of isometric force in three different starting block positions."

Answer: Thanks, it has been modified.

 

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the new version of your manuscript entitled "A specific test of starting blocks: intrasession and intersession reliability of isometric strength using a functional electromechanical dynamometer", now identified as "applsci-3117031". I am pleased to note that the manuscript has been significantly improved.

In my opinion, the manuscript is well suited for the Biomedical Engineering section of the "Recent Advances in Applied Biomechanics and Sports Sciences" special issue of Applied Sciences. I have no other requests or comments.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the review process.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript demonstrates a high level of English proficiency. It is well written, with clear and precise language that effectively communicates the research findings. The few areas for minor improvement do not detract from the overall quality and readability of the text. In my opinion, the manuscript is linguistically ready for publication. However, further professional editing is recommended to ensure the manuscript is polished and error-free.

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

 

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript, "A specific test of starting blocks: intrasession and intersession reliability of isometric strength using a functional electromechanical dynamometer" (manuscript ID: applsci-3117031). We are delighted to hear that you found the revised version significantly improved and well-suited for the Biomedical Engineering section of the "Recent Advances in Applied Biomechanics and Sports Sciences" special issue of Applied Sciences.

Thank you once again for your valuable time and consideration. We are pleased to have met your expectations, and we look forward to the next steps in the publication process.

Comment:

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the new version of your manuscript entitled "A specific test of starting blocks: intrasession and intersession reliability of isometric strength using a functional electromechanical dynamometer", now identified as "applsci-3117031". I am pleased to note that the manuscript has been significantly improved.

In my opinion, the manuscript is well suited for the Biomedical Engineering section of the "Recent Advances in Applied Biomechanics and Sports Sciences" special issue of Applied Sciences. I have no other requests or comments.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the review process.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript demonstrates a high level of English proficiency. It is well written, with clear and precise language that effectively communicates the research findings. The few areas for minor improvement do not detract from the overall quality and readability of the text. In my opinion, the manuscript is linguistically ready for publication. However, further professional editing is recommended to ensure the manuscript is polished and error-free.

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

You have written an interesting study, however some parts need to be addressed for greater clarity.

The introduction is well-written and clearly leads to the main rationale and hypothesis.

Methods: How did you determine the sample size (G*Power or any other method?) - report. What is the power of your study?

More info on participants is needed - what is their sporting background, do they have any experience in sprinting - i.e track and field / you report experience but of what?

Did they sign the written consent? report

report the randomisation system for reproducibility.

Which anthropometric measurements were obtained and by whom? report

Add d1-d3 distances from Figure 1 to the corresponding paragraph so it is clearer for the reader.

How did you determine the dominant leg? report

Report the manufacturer and model of FEMD.

The statistical section is done well.

The discussion is solid

Limitations are well-presented

In conclusion - future recommendations should also mention a validity study against other dynamometers.

Kind regards

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your invaluable feedback and insightful comments on our manuscript titled “A specific test of starting blocks: intrasession and intersession reliability of isometric strength using a functional electromechanical dynamometer”. Your expertise and attention to detail have greatly enhanced the quality of our work. Your constructive criticism and suggestions have helped us to strengthen our arguments and improve the clarity of our writing. We truly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your comments and have made the necessary revisions accordingly. Your input has been instrumental in refining our research, and we believe that the revised version of the manuscript is now much stronger as a result.

 

Comments

Dear Authors

You have written an interesting study, however some parts need to be addressed for greater clarity. The introduction is well-written and clearly leads to the main rationale and hypothesis.

Methods: How did you determine the sample size (G*Power or any other method?) - report. What is the power of your study?

Answer: we have included the sample size with G*power including the values. However, it is difficult to calculate the population of existing athletes and sprinters, so assuming an infinite population, the value is reduced, this has been included in limitations

 

More info on participants is needed - what is their sporting background, do they have any experience in sprinting - i.e track and field / you report experience but of what?

Answer: The information about the experiences has been added “with 7.40 ± 1.77 years of experience in sprinting and block start participated in this study. Regarding the inclusion criteria, i) university students in physical activity and sports sciences, ii) with a minimum of one year of experience in sprinting, iii) who have practiced block start techniques, iv) with at least one year of prior experience in block starts; and v) who have identified the leg positioned in the front block, which we classify as the dominant leg.

 

Did they sign the written consent? Report

Answer: Yes, all participants were informed about the nature, objectives, and associated risks of the experimental procedure before providing their written consent to participate. This is indicated in the participants section.

report the randomization system for reproducibility.

Answer: The information about the randomization has been added “The order and sequence of tests (bilateral, dominant and non-dominant) were randomized to prevent any effects on learning and fatigue using a computerized system (random.org).”

 Which anthropometric measurements were obtained and by whom? Report

Answer: a more detailed description of anthropometric measurement has been added “Body mass (kg) was assessed using an electronic scale (SECA 861. Hamburg. Germany) with an accuracy of 100 g and height (cm) was assessed using a precision stadiometer (SECA 225, Hamburg, Germany) to the nearest 0.1 cm. BMI was calculated as body mass (kg)/height (m2). In addition, leg length was measured. All anthropometric measurements were conducted by AR-P.”

 Add d1-d3 distances from Figure 1 to the corresponding paragraph so it is clearer for the reader.

Answer: thanks for your comment. It has been added.

 

How did you determine the dominant leg? Report

Answer: The dominant leg was determined by the leg positioned in the front block during a block start, and the non-dominant leg by the leg positioned in the rear block, as established by each athlete based on their prior experience.

 

Report the manufacturer and model of FEMD.

Answer: the manufacturer and model of FEMD has been added “Myoquality M1, Myoquality Solutions, Granada, Spain”

 

The statistical section is done well.

The discussion is solid

Limitations are well-presented

In conclusion - future recommendations should also mention a validity study against other dynamometers.

Answer: It has been added as a future line of research.

Kind regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aimed to determine the intrasession and intersession reliability of the isometric force of three different positions of the starting block, by using a FEMD to compare the intrasession and intersession reliability of peak and average isometric force of three different positions of the starting block and to compare the intrasession and intersession reliability of three different positions of starting blocks.

 

This study gives in detail description and comparison of   metric characteristics of different ways and techniques of measuring isometric strength on starting bloc in sprinters. This fills the gap in studies so far and gives the basis for the improvement of research practice. We have numerous validation studies dealing with isometric strength measuring but this specific way and purpose by my best knowledge we didn’t have.

 

Regarding this especial research I do not have any suggestions for improvement but in next studies they should have bigger more divers and representative sample.

 

Presented data are very detailed, I would say more than enough to have clear picture about research question and answers on it.  Also presented data give useful guidelines for researchers in this field on how to approach the problem of measuring isometric strength as well as justification for the decisions made.

 

The references are appropriate.

 

I have not additional comments.

 

In the end, this is small piece of isometric strength measuring puzzle yet, it is novel, a useful and necessary step in research practice.

 

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aimed to determine the intrasession and intersession reliability of the isometric force of three different positions of the starting block, by using a FEMD to compare the intrasession and intersession reliability of peak and average isometric force of three different positions of the starting block and to compare the intrasession and intersession reliability of three different positions of starting blocks.

 

This study gives in detail description and comparison of  metric characteristics of different ways and techniques of measuring isometric strength on starting bloc in sprinters. This fills the gap in studies so far and gives the basis for the improvement of research practice. We have numerous validation studies dealing with isometric strength measuring but this specific way and purpose by my best knowledge we didn’t have. 

 

Regarding this especial research I do not have any suggestions for improvement but in next studies they should have bigger more divers and representative sample.

 

Presented data are very detailed, I would say more than enough to have clear picture about research question and answers on it.  Also presented data give useful guidelines for researchers in this field on how to approach the problem of measuring isometric strength as well as justification for the decisions made. 

 

The references are appropriate. 

 

I have not additional comments.

 

In the end, this is small piece of isometric strength measuring puzzle yet, it is novel, a useful and necessary step in research practice.

Answer: We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your invaluable feedback and insightful comments on our manuscript

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript ID 'applsci-3006178' entitled "A specific test of starting blocks: intrasession and intersession reliability of isometric strength using a functional electromechanical dynamometer." Your within-subjects design study is exceptionally suited for the Biomedical Engineering section of the special issue "Recent Advances in Applied Biomechanics and Sports Sciences."

Your manuscript aims to provide robust evidence that this dynamometer can be reliably used to assess and monitor the isometric force of athletes in various starting positions, thereby contributing to improved training and performance evaluation practices in sports science.

The manuscript is of high quality and makes a significant contribution to the field. However, revisions are needed to enhance clarity, detail, and completeness. Addressing the issues and expanding on some methodological and contextual aspects will strengthen the manuscript. Specific areas requiring attention are outlined as follows:

1. Simplify complex sentences to make the manuscript more accessible, especially to readers who may not be specialists in the field. Also, improve transitions between sections and paragraphs to ensure a logical flow of ideas. Use transitional phrases to guide the reader through the manuscript.

2. Ensure consistency in the use of terms throughout the paper. Avoid jargon or overly complex terms unless they are well-defined within the context of the manuscript.

3. Please ensure that the details of the functional electromechanical dynamometer and any other equipment used in the research comply with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations. Guidelines are available at https://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf

4. The literature review is comprehensive, but it could benefit from including more recent studies to highlight the current state of research in the field. Ensuring a balance of recent and seminal works would be beneficial.

5. Please include more information about the criteria used to select participants in the Materials and Methods section to help improve this section.

6. The sample size of eighteen participants may limit the generalizability of the findings. Although the sample size is acknowledged as a limitation, a discussion of the power analysis to justify the sample size could strengthen the study.

7. Still concerning statistical procedures, was a normality test performed for the data? Please report this information in the text. In addition, what is the rationale for using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) in test-retest comparisons? Please explain.

8. Present the statistical methods more understandably. Simplify the explanation of terms like SSE, MSE, RMSE, SEM, SEE, and MDC90, ensuring definitions are clear and easily understandable.

9. The figures and tables are appropriate but could be more detailed in their legends to ensure they are fully understandable without referring back to the text.

10. The MDC90 statistic is incorrectly referred to in full as MCD in the tables. Please correct this and other abbreviations.

11. Proofread the manuscript for grammatical errors and improve readability.

12. Discussing the practical implications of your findings in more detail would be beneficial. How can the high reliability of the functional electromechanical dynamometer in assessing isometric force in different starting block positions influence training practices?

13. Consider including a section on potential future research directions. This could provide readers with a broader context for how your findings fit into the larger field of sports science.

I appreciate the effort you have put into this manuscript and look forward to its development. By addressing these points, your manuscript can achieve a higher degree of scientific rigor, broader relevance, and clearer presentation, thereby making it a more valuable contribution to the field of sports science research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally well-written, clear, and technically correct. It conforms to professional standards of courtesy and expression, with a structured presentation and formal language appropriate for academic publications. However, there are areas where improvements can enhance readability and precision. Here are some suggestions for language improvements:

I. Ensure that all sentences are grammatically correct and concise. Avoid run-on sentences and use proper punctuation to separate ideas.

II. Improve transitions between sections and paragraphs to ensure a logical flow of ideas. Use transitional phrases to guide the reader through the manuscript.

III. Avoid jargon or overly complex terms unless they are well-defined within the context of the manuscript.

Finally, proofread thoroughly to correct typographical errors or awkward phrasing. Consider having a native English speaker or professional editor review the manuscript for language quality.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and dedication in reviewing the manuscript. We believe that these comments will improve the quality of our manuscript. Each comment has been specifically addressed and changes to the manuscript have been highlighted in yellow.

 

Comments

Dear Author,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript ID 'applsci-3006178' entitled "A specific test of starting blocks: intrasession and intersession reliability of isometric strength using a functional electromechanical dynamometer." Your within-subjects design study is exceptionally suited for the Biomedical Engineering section of the special issue "Recent Advances in Applied Biomechanics and Sports Sciences."

Your manuscript aims to provide robust evidence that this dynamometer can be reliably used to assess and monitor the isometric force of athletes in various starting positions, thereby contributing to improved training and performance evaluation practices in sports science.

The manuscript is of high quality and makes a significant contribution to the field. However, revisions are needed to enhance clarity, detail, and completeness. Addressing the issues and expanding on some methodological and contextual aspects will strengthen the manuscript. Specific areas requiring attention are outlined as follows:

1. Simplify complex sentences to make the manuscript more accessible, especially to readers who may not be specialists in the field. Also, improve transitions between sections and paragraphs to ensure a logical flow of ideas. Use transitional phrases to guide the reader through the manuscript.

Answer: thanks for your comment, sentences have been simplified and transitions have been improved.

 

2. Ensure consistency in the use of terms throughout the paper. Avoid jargon or overly complex terms unless they are well-defined within the context of the manuscript.

Answer: thanks for your comment, it has been modified.

3. Please ensure that the details of the functional electromechanical dynamometer and any other equipment used in the research comply with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations. Guidelines are available at https://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf

Answer: the manufacturer and model of FEMD has been added “Myoquality M1, Myoquality Solutions, Granada, Spain”

4. The literature review is comprehensive, but it could benefit from including more recent studies to highlight the current state of research in the field. Ensuring a balance of recent and seminal works would be beneficial.

Answer: we believe we have included the most up-to-date bibliography on the topic regarding reliability.

5. Please include more information about the criteria used to select participants in the Materials and Methods section to help improve this section.

Answer: the information about the criteria used has been added “Regarding the inclusion criteria, i) university students in physical activity and sports sciences, ii) with a minimum of one year of experience in sprinting, iii) who have practiced block start techniques, iv) with at least one year of prior experience in block starts; and v) who have identified the leg positioned in the front block, which we classify as the dominant leg.”

6. The sample size of eighteen participants may limit the generalizability of the findings. Although the sample size is acknowledged as a limitation, a discussion of the power analysis to justify the sample size could strengthen the study.

Answer: we have included the results of G*power software on participants sections to justify this aspect.

7. Still concerning statistical procedures, was a normality test performed for the data? Please report this information in the text. In addition, what is the rationale for using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) in test-retest comparisons? Please explain.

Answer: the statistical analyses section has been modified “Descriptive data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). The normality of the data was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test”. ANOVA has been removed as it must have been an error.

8. Present the statistical methods more understandably. Simplify the explanation of terms like SSE, MSE, RMSE, SEM, SEE, and MDC90, ensuring definitions are clear and easily understandable.

Answer: we have simplified the statistics section to facilitate comprehension.

9. The figures and tables are appropriate but could be more detailed in their legends to ensure they are fully understandable without referring back to the text.

Answer: additional information has been included in the figures and tables to enhance understanding.

10. The MDC90 statistic is incorrectly referred to in full as MCD in the tables. Please correct this and other abbreviations.

Answer: thanks for your comment. It has been corrected.

11. Proofread the manuscript for grammatical errors and improve readability.

Answer: thanks for your comment. It has been corrected.

12. Discussing the practical implications of your findings in more detail would be beneficial. How can the high reliability of the functional electromechanical dynamometer in assessing isometric force in different starting block positions influence training practices?

Answer: we have included a paragraph before limitations to include the importance of the results.

13. Consider including a section on potential future research directions. This could provide readers with a broader context for how your findings fit into the larger field of sports science.

Answer: it is included after limitation sections (before conclusions).

I appreciate the effort you have put into this manuscript and look forward to its development. By addressing these points, your manuscript can achieve a higher degree of scientific rigor, broader relevance, and clearer presentation, thereby making it a more valuable contribution to the field of sports science research.

Answer: We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your invaluable feedback and insightful comments on our manuscript

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally well-written, clear, and technically correct. It conforms to professional standards of courtesy and expression, with a structured presentation and formal language appropriate for academic publications. However, there are areas where improvements can enhance readability and precision. Here are some suggestions for language improvements:

1. Ensure that all sentences are grammatically correct and concise. Avoid run-on sentences and use proper punctuation to separate ideas.
2. Improve transitions between sections and paragraphs to ensure a logical flow of ideas. Use transitional phrases to guide the reader through the manuscript.

III. Avoid jargon or overly complex terms unless they are well-defined within the context of the manuscript.

Finally, proofread thoroughly to correct typographical errors or awkward phrasing. Consider having a native English speaker or professional editor review the manuscript for language quality.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

You have adequately addressed all of my questions and suggestions.

However, the biggest limitation is the study power. Also report all necessary data for G*Power calculation, for which test, tails, effect size, etc.

With your beta error of 0,35 all of your calculations have a very large Type II error. Studies like this show a very poor design before execution. Therefore, all of your results are literally pointless and this is especially important in introducing new tests via reliability and validity studies.

Therefore, from a statistical point of view, I have to reject this paper.

I recommend calculating the sample size for needed tests apriori to the study with the G*Power program.

 

Kind regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of the English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you again for your contributions. Each comment has been specifically addressed and changes to the manuscript have been highlighted in yellow.

Comments

Dear Authors,

You have adequately addressed all of my questions and suggestions.

However, the biggest limitation is the study power. Also report all necessary data for G*Power calculation, for which test, tails, effect size, etc.

With your beta error of 0,35 all of your calculations have a very large Type II error. Studies like this show a very poor design before execution. Therefore, all of your results are literally pointless and this is especially important in introducing new tests via reliability and validity studies.

Therefore, from a statistical point of view, I have to reject this paper.

I recommend calculating the sample size for needed tests apriori to the study with the G*Power program.

 

Kind regard

 

Answer

 

Dear Reviewer,

 

We appreciate your thorough review of our manuscript and the points you have raised. We understand the concerns regarding statistical power and the risk of Type II errors in studies with small sample sizes.

We have added the sample size calculation has been detailed in the statistics section

 

“Prior to recruiting participants for our study, to ensure adequate statistical power for our reliability study with 8 repeated measurements, we calculated the required sample size using G*Power 3.1. We conducted an a priori power analysis for repeated measures ANOVA within factors. The analysis parameters included a moderate effect size (f = 0.25), a significance level (α) of 0.05, a desired power (1-β) of 0.8, a single group, 8 measurements, an assumed correlation of 0.5 among repeated measures, and a nonsphericity correction (ε) of 1.0. Based on these settings, the analysis determined that a total sample size of 16 subjects would achieve an actual power of 0.819. This sample size is sufficient to detect a moderate effect while minimizing the risk of Type II errors, thereby ensuring the reliability of the results in our repeated measures design”.

 

We sincerely thank you again for your insightful comments, which have been instrumental in enhancing the clarity and quality of our manuscript. We trust that these clarifications underscore the relevance and validity of our results in the context of the conducted study.

 

Sincerely,

 

David Manzano

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version of your manuscript titled "A specific test of starting blocks: intrasession and intersession reliability of isometric strength using a functional electromechanical dynamometer," identified as "applsci-3006178." I am pleased to note the manuscript has been significantly enhanced.

While I confirm that all previously mentioned comments have been effectively addressed, there remain three points that require further attention:

1. Line 112: Periods, not commas, were used between the model, city, and country of the electronic scale (SECA 861. Hamburg. Germany). Please correct.

2. Lines 227 to 229 – Table 2: The first line of the table shows the abbreviation MDC90, which was described in line 229 as MCD90. Considering that the abbreviation stands for "minimal detectable change", I understand that the correct abbreviation is MDC and not MCD. Please review the discrepancies and make the necessary corrections.

3. Lines 254 to 257 – Table 3: The first line of the table (line with variable titles) shows the abbreviation MDC90, which was described in line 257 as MCD90. Considering that the abbreviation stands for "minimal detectable change", I understand that the correct abbreviation is MDC and not MCD. Please review the discrepancies and make the necessary corrections.

It was mainly in my final reading of the corrected article that I noticed these discrepancies. However, I ask you to carefully read all the details of the production, as I recommended the approval of your manuscript.

I am grateful for the chance to contribute to the ongoing process of refining your work.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you again for your contributions. Each comment has been specifically addressed and changes to the manuscript have been highlighted in yellow.

 

Comments

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version of your manuscript titled "A specific test of starting blocks: intrasession and intersession reliability of isometric strength using a functional electromechanical dynamometer," identified as "applsci-3006178." I am pleased to note the manuscript has been significantly enhanced.

While I confirm that all previously mentioned comments have been effectively addressed, there remain three points that require further attention:

1. Line 112: Periods, not commas, were used between the model, city, and country of the electronic scale (SECA 861. Hamburg. Germany). Please correct.

Answer: Thank you, the periods have been changed to commas

 

2. Lines 227 to 229 – Table 2: The first line of the table shows the abbreviation MDC90, which was described in line 229 as MCD90. Considering that the abbreviation stands for "minimal detectable change", I understand that the correct abbreviation is MDC and not MCD. Please review the discrepancies and make the necessary corrections.

Answer: Thank you, it has been changed.

 

3. Lines 254 to 257 – Table 3: The first line of the table (line with variable titles) shows the abbreviation MDC90, which was described in line 257 as MCD90. Considering that the abbreviation stands for "minimal detectable change", I understand that the correct abbreviation is MDC and not MCD. Please review the discrepancies and make the necessary corrections.

Answer: Thank you, it has been changed.

 

It was mainly in my final reading of the corrected article that I noticed these discrepancies. However, I ask you to carefully read all the details of the production, as I recommended the approval of your manuscript.

I am grateful for the chance to contribute to the ongoing process of refining your work.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

 

My answer stays the same. You need sufficient power for all your tests, and not just one!

 

Kind regards

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of the English language required

Author Response

Reviewer: Dear Authors

My answer stays the same. You need sufficient power for all your tests, and not just one!

Answer: 

Dear reviewer, 

There is not that much population that meets the inclusion criteria. For this reason we have justified the sample size with the G power and another paper (as we send before) used a similar sample due to the specificity of this paper

 

Best regards