Cognitive and Motor Capacities Are Poorly Correlated with Agility in Early Pubertal Children: Gender-Stratified Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,
I commend your study aiming to identify the relationships between cognitive abilities, power, and reactive agility, which I find both original and highly interesting.

From a correlational perspective, your approach holds the potential to optimize reactive agility by considering specific physical capacities, skills, and abilities. Your mention of factors such as balance, mobility, perception, and intelligence in the conclusion (page 10, line 384) reinforces this perspective, and I wholeheartedly agree with these considerations.

The technologically rich test battery you have proposed allows for the construction of a correlational profile between reactive agility and measured variables such as strength, speed, and reactivity through a rigorous statistical analysis.

However, I sincerely suggest enriching the study by providing a more precise characterization of the population, particularly by differentiating a group of children engaged in team sports for several years from a group composed of more or less sedentary children. I am convinced that this could yield differentiated results in the relationships you seek to explore. It might be valuable to add a table characterizing extracurricular sports activities, both for girls and boys, including details such as the type of activity, duration of practice, weekly frequency, competition level, etc. These details could shed further light on the relationships between cognitive abilities, power, and reactive agility, allowing for a more analytical and informative study.
Additionally, I recommend specifying the units corresponding to the variables studied in Table 1, which would enhance the methodological clarity of your work.

I wish you good luck with your ongoing work and remain available for any discussions or clarifications needed.

Respectfully,

Author Response

Response to: Reviewer 1

1) From a correlational perspective, your approach holds the potential to optimize reactive agility by considering specific physical capacities, skills, and abilities. Your mention of factors such as balance, mobility, perception, and intelligence in the conclusion (page 10, line 384) reinforces this perspective, and I wholeheartedly agree with these considerations.

Dear reviewer, we appreciate your recognition of our correlational approach to optimizing reactive agility. Your comments support our understanding of these factors' significance and encourage us to investigate their connections in more detail in our upcoming research projects.

The technologically rich test battery you have proposed allows for the construction of a correlational profile between reactive agility and measured variables such as strength, speed, and reactivity through a rigorous statistical analysis.

We are grateful for your acknowledgment of the technologically advanced test battery proposed in our study.

However, I sincerely suggest enriching the study by providing a more precise characterization of the population, particularly by differentiating a group of children engaged in team sports for several years from a group composed of more or less sedentary children. I am convinced that this could yield differentiated results in the relationships you seek to explore. It might be valuable to add a table characterizing extracurricular sports activities, both for girls and boys, including details such as the type of activity, duration of practice, weekly frequency, competition level, etc. These details could shed further light on the relationships between cognitive abilities, power, and reactive agility, allowing for a more analytical and informative study.

We are thankful for your suggestion to provide a more detailed characterization of the study population. A section providing an overview of our respondents' participation in organized sports has been added to enhance the study. Specifically, we report that (103-108): “Out of 101 respondents, 68 individuals (67.3%) reported participation in organized sports. Among those, the majority (36 respondents, 52.9%) were involved in team sports. Additional activities included martial arts (13 participants, 19.1%), aesthetic sports and athletics (each with 7 participants, 10.3%), rock climbing (3 participants, 4.4%), and aquatic sports (2 participants, 2.9%). The rest of them, 33 respondents (32.7%) have reported not to participate in organized training.”

According to the subjective statement of the participants, all of them who participated in such activities reported more than 2 years of competitive practice. Other details such as duration of practice, weekly frequency, competition level, etc. we did not collect and we have underlined it in the limitations section, Line 390-393: “Future research should focus on competitive young athletes and consider factors such as practice duration, weekly frequency, and competition level to deepen our understanding of how cognitive abilities, power, and reactive agility are interconnected.”

Additionally, I recommend specifying the units corresponding to the variables studied in Table 1, which would enhance the methodological clarity of your work.

We have specified units corresponding to the variables studied in Table 1.

I wish you good luck with your ongoing work and remain available for any discussions or clarifications needed.

Thank you very much for your well wishes and for offering your support.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Please revise the document.

Thank you. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to: Reviewer 2

Dear Authors,

It is a methodologically sound study on the association between agility, cognitive functions and fitness variables. It is noteworthy that the main contribution of the study is the relationship between agility and physical fitness variables, but not on the agility-cognition relationship. It is a study that can be projected over time on the basis of assessing other cognitive function variables and associating them with agility or others. These projections, future findings, can contribute to and complement the contents of the physical education class.

Some considerations

1. Search for the keywords at: https://meshb.nlm.nih.gov/. Change the words "RAG" and "squat jump" because they do not appear in the library.

Respected reviewer, we used “MeSH on Demand” system do detect best keywords for our abstract. Accordingly, we excluded “RAG” and "squat jump" and change them with terms “regression analysis” and “cognition”.

2. If you claim that there is a knowledge gap on this specific topic, you should show evidence for this, i.e. cite studies that support this claim, as they have done in the discussion section (i.e. Horička et al. [2020]). (line 79 - 82).

New references have been introduced like suggested. (Scanlan, A., Humphries, B., Tucker, P. S., & Dalbo, V. (2014). The influence of physical and cognitive factors on reactive agility performance in men basketball players. Journal of sports sciences, 32(4), 367-374. / Horička, P.; Šimonek, J.; Paška, Ľ. Relationship between reactive agility, cognitive abilities, and intelligence in adolescents. Journal of Physical Education and Sport 2020, 20, 2263-2268.) LINE

3. Indicate how the sampling procedure was done, what calculation was performed (line 94).

From the Croatian Ministry of Science and Education and elementary school in which the study was conducted we found data that 228 students attended 7^th and 8^th grade program in four divisions per year. We have randomly chosen one 7^th grade and one 8^th grade class with total of 101 students. This was 54.74% of all 7^th and 8^th graders in the school. Accordingly, authors are of the opinion that this sample percentage represents well the whole population of students of this age in the school. Added in text (line 96-98): “This was 54.74% of all 7th and 8th graders in the school and this sample percentage should represent well the whole population of students of this age in the particular elementary school “.

4. Indicate how this variable was assessed, by means of questionnaires, clinical tests, etc. "(line 96).

All of the participants were in good health, and some of them participated in after-school sports. Information about after-school sports were collected by subjective statement of the participants. We have added, (line 99), in the text: “information on which was collected through the subjective statements of the participants”. Good health of the participants was also assessed by the information from PE teacher who had participants’ general medical examination reports, as it is obligatory in elementary schools in Croatia at the beginning of each academic year. There is organized medical service with specialists in school medicine, specific doctor assigned for each school. Every year each student is obligated to have general medical examination. If the student has any health issue that limits her/him from PE class activities she/he gets a medical report with instructions for reduced load or restrictions for the class. This comment also refers to lines 97-103. Added in text, (line100-102):” Since general medical examinations are required in all Croatian elementary schools for each grade at the start of each academic year, the PE teacher's information about the participants' health was also evaluated.”

5. This is a bias in the research, as some students had higher/better motor skills than others due to participating in sports, what do the authors think (line 97).

We recognize that some participants may have an advantage in all selected tests due to their involvement in sports. However, it is important to note that children not currently engaged in sports have likely participated in sports activities at some point during their schooling. Furthermore, many children who do not participate in organized training still are engaged in sports activities on school playgrounds and during PE classes. The purpose of our specially developed test, the Triangle Test of Reactive Agility, is to provide a rapid and simple means for evaluating reactive agility in elementary school children. This tool aims to help in the identification and recommendation of appropriate sports for children. Elementary school children often switch sports or take breaks from sporting activities for several months at a time. Such breaks might be due to summer holidays, illness, morphological changes affecting performance in a specific sport, or simply the desire for a change. Therefore, we believe it is crucial not to exclude any child who regularly attends physical education classes, as potential talent can be found anywhere.

Also, we have added information about participants’ sports activities, as recommended by reviewer 1. Specifically, we reported that (line 103-108): “Out of 101 respondents, 68 individuals (67.3%) reported participation in organized sports. Among those, the majority (36 respondents, 52.9%) were involved in team sports. Additional activities included martial arts (13 participants, 19.1%), aesthetic sports and athletics (each with 7 participants, 10.3%), rock climbing (3 participants, 4.4%), and aquatic sports (2 participants, 2.9%). The rest of them, 33 respondents (32.7%) have reported not currently participating in organized training.”

6. Indicate how this was assessed (no obvious motor abnormalities) (line 98).

As stated earlier, PE teacher gets participants’ general medical examination reports at the beginning of each academic year. Pupils with motor abnormalities or other serious health issues have specific instruction by the doctor to participate in PE classes with reduced load or not to participate at all. Therefore, students with such medical reports were not included in the study. Added in text, (line100-102):” Since general medical examinations are required in Croatian elementary schools at the start of each academic year, the PE teacher's information about the participants' health was also evaluated.”

7. Indicate how this was assessed (consistent involvement in physical activity (line 100).

Meaning involvement in physical activity during PE class, with no restrictions due to the health issues. All children who are in a good health attend PE classes and also after school sports, PE teacher has all the data of physical education attendance.  Added in text (line 111): “…and reliable attendance records for physical education classes, as verified by the PE teachers.”

8. Is this a reliable and valid means of collecting information? may be a bias in the research (verbal reports) (line 103).

Maybe the expression verbal reports are not the most convenient and we have replaced it with subjective report. It includes reports from the PE teacher who collects that information from students at the beginning of each PE class. Added in text (line 99): “…which was collected through the subjective statements of the participants.”

9. The units of measurement of the variables must be included (table 1).

We have added units in Table 1.

10. Confidence intervals should be included for all variables (table 3).

Added as demanded in Table 1.

11. Why were DHJ and 20Y BP included as exploratory variables in the regression model if they did not achieve statistical significance (0.07 and 0.23, respectively) (table 3).

We performed regression analysis including all T_RAG variables and we have presented it in Table 3, both significant and non-significant. As calculated and presented in Table 3, all four variables together explained 80% of T_RAG variable performance. The significance tests indicate that T_CODS and SJ variables contributed more substantially than DHJ and 20Y_BP tests. Yet, this does not mean that “less significant” variables did not contribute to the given model. Accordingly, excluding these variables from the regression model would, in our view, be methodologically incorrect. We acknowledge the reviewer’s perspective and are open to further discussion. We suggest that excluding those variables might not serve in the best interests of the analysis in this particular context.

12. Would it be appropriate to analyse that a 1 cm increase in the SJ test decreases the performance in the T_RAG test by -1.01 seconds? What do the authors think, and would this be valid for interpreting the T_CODS? (table 3).

Respected reviewer, thank you for this comment. We noticed this phenomenon but choose not to comment because in our opinion that is a small influence on TRAG performance. Namely, small increase in vertical jumping ability may seem irrelevant for significant increase of reactive agility performance.

Yet, it must be stated that reactive agility test applied in our study has very short duration and that possible increment of 1,01 seconds in performance (calculated by regression model) is more than a third part of total time spent during the test – more than 30% of the average testing time. Therefore, authors are of the opinion that this data are valuable for analysis and discussion in the given research. We hope that reviewer will have understanding for our attitude in this particular issue. 

13. The confidence intervals for T-CODS should be incorporated (table 4).

Respected reviewer, thank you for your comment. We have integrated the confidence intervals for T-CODS in Table 1.

14. Would it be appropriate to analyse that with a 1 second increase in T_CODS, the performance in the T_RAG test increases by 0.65 seconds? What do the authors think? (table 4).

Respected reviewer, authors agree that the increase is “relatively” small in criterion variable. Yet, we must stress that agility is very “fast” ability in which even short times could lead to more successful performance of the subject tested. Therefore, we believe that this influence is significant (as shown by regression model) and that it is appropriate to analyze it in our research. 

15. It does not coincide with the stated objective in the introduction section, specifically when

indicating the "power abilities" variables (line 283-284).

We synchronized main goal of the study in introduction and discussion section.  Introduction (line 85): “The objective of this study was to explore the correlation between cognitive capacities, assessed by the Stroop test, and the assessment of RAG in pubescent boys and girls.” Discussion (line 398): “The main goal of this study was to investigate correlations between cognitive capacities and generic reactive agility in pubescent girls and boys”.

16. This can be considered a limitation of the study. However, other limitations should be

incorporated as well as strengths of the study, do you think so (line 368).

As suggested it is incorporated in the last chapter of discussion section.

17. What is the main contribution of the study? considering that they have provided evidence of the relationship between physical performance variables (agility, jumping, speed...). This could be expected in a way as it is reported in the literature for different age groups, athletes and nonathletes.

Respected reviewer, we have changed conclusion chapter and added contribution of the study. (lines 404-414)

18. This idea should be incorporated at the end of the discussion section, where I allude to

limitations and strengths (line 385).

As suggested it is incorporated in the last chapter of discussion section.

19. These ideas would be more appropriate as projections of the research, and should be moved to the end of the discussion section, and not here after the discussion section "Therefore, intervention..." (line 385-391).

As suggested it is incorporated in the last chapter of discussion section.

Reviewer 3 Report

Cognitive and motor capacities … Manuscript ID: applsci-2892102

1.       Dear Authrors your paper is very well-written. It is valuable to fill in a gap in the literature.
I will strongly recommend to the Editor to publish the paper. 

Small issues and critical remarks

2.       Your data representation in Table 1 misses - in my view – some of the units. For example: does the Tanita give mass in kg or a body mass index?

3.       Lines 295, 298, 301, 308, 324, 350, and 359, give a seemingly  inconsistent display of references (not numbered). Could you please number these in accordance with your references list?

4.       Line 18, ‘while the BlazePod system were used’ should read ‘while the BlazePod system was used’.

5.       Line 21, OptoJump system’ misses the manufacturer’s name (compare Lines 133, 138 145).

6.       Line 33, ‘compared to the girls’ should read ‘compared to girls’.

7.       Line 125, ‘Opto Gait system’ misses the manufacturer’s name (compare Lines 133, 138 145).

8.       Line 129, ‘Encephal App Stroop’ also misses the manufacturer’s name. In line 189 you name the tool in a different way. In Lines 193-194, you mention the product origin too late. Please improve the text by making it consistent.

9.       Line 241, ‘Extracted factor is defined’ should read ‘The extracted factor is defined’.

10.   Lines 283 - 290, give a summary of conclusions. These lines could better be put in the 5. Conclusions chapter.

11.   Lines 301 and 303, refer to the literature on the found reaction times related to agility for young people. I suggest referring next to Zwierko additionally to the result [1] of the reaction times effect foundto the result of reduced reaction times found in old age subjects [1].

12.   Lines 385 - 391, give a relevant point of discussion.  Please put this the chapter  4. Discussion.

References

1.          Koppelaar, H.; Kordestani-Moghadam, P.; Kouhkani, S.; Irandoust, F.; Segers, G.; Haas, L. de; Bantje, T.; Warmerdam, M. van Proof of Concept of Novel Visuo-Spatial-Motor Fall Prevention Training for Old People. Geriatrics 2021, 6, 1–27.

Author Response

Response to: Reviewer 3

Cognitive and motor capacities … Manuscript ID: applsci-2892102

1. Dear Authors your paper is very well-written. It is valuable to fill in a gap in the literature.

I will strongly recommend to the Editor to publish the paper.

Thank you very much for your positive feedback and for recognizing the value of our work in filling a research gap in the literature. We are grateful for your strong recommendation to the Editor for the publication of our paper.

Small issues and critical remarks

2. Your data representation in Table 1 misses - in my view – some of the units. For example: does the Tanita give mass in kg or a body mass index?

Units have been added in Table 1.

3. Lines 295, 298, 301, 308, 324, 350, and 359, give a seemingly inconsistent display of references (not numbered). Could you please number these in accordance with your references list?

Respected reviewer, thank you for your comment. We double-checked and numbered references accordingly from line 295 to 359 are in order in reference list.

4. Line 18, ‘while the BlazePod system were used’ should read ‘while the BlazePod system was used’.

It has been changed according to your instructions.

5. Line 21, OptoJump system’ misses the manufacturer’s name (compare Lines 133, 138 145).

It has been changed according to your instructions. Manufacturer’s name added; “(Microgate, Bolzano, Italy)

6. Line 33, ‘compared to the girls’ should read ‘compared to girls’.

It has been changed according to your instructions.

7. Line 125, ‘Opto Gait system’ misses the manufacturer’s name (compare Lines 133, 138 145).

It has been changed according to your instructions. Also, Opto Gait changed to Opto Jump.

8. Line 129, ‘Encephal App Stroop’ also misses the manufacturer’s name. In line 189 you name the tool in a different way. In Lines 193-194, you mention the product origin too late. Please improve the text by making it consistent.

It has been changed according to your instructions.

Product origin was removed from 193 and placed at the first mentioning of the Stroop test, in Measures and procedures, line142-143

9. Line 241, ‘Extracted factor is defined’ should read ‘The extracted factor is defined’.

It has been changed according to your instructions.

10. Lines 283 - 290, give a summary of conclusions. These lines could better be put in the 5. Conclusions chapter.

It has been changed according to your instructions.

11. Lines 301 and 303, refer to the literature on the found reaction times related to agility for young people. I suggest referring next to Zwierko additionally to the result [1] of the reaction times effect found to the result of reduced reaction times found in old age subjects [1].

Respected reviewer, we have added reference as suggested.

12. Lines 385 - 391, give a relevant point of discussion. Please put this the chapter  4. Discussion.

It has been changed according to your instructions.

References

1. Koppelaar, H.; Kordestani-Moghadam, P.; Kouhkani, S.; Irandoust, F.; Segers, G.; Haas, L. de; Bantje, T.; Warmerdam, M. van Proof of Concept of Novel Visuo-Spatial-Motor Fall Prevention Training for Old People. Geriatrics 2021, 6, 1–27.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

Please review the document.

Thanks.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

RESPOND TO THE REVIEWER REVISION

3. Indicate how the sampling procedure was done, what calculation was performed (line 94).

That's what I meant, what kind of random sampling they used (simple, strata, etc.). This should be indicated in the text.

We have used a simple random sampling technique and choose one 7th grade and one 8th grade class with total of 101 students.

Changed as suggested: “A simple random sampling technique was used to choose one 7th grade and one 8th grade class with total of 101 students,” (line 94-95).

11. Why were DHJ and 20Y BP included as exploratory variables in the regression model if they did not achieve statistical significance (0.07 and 0.23, respectively) (table 3).

It is not appropriate to indicate that variables are "less significant", as this is not relative, but

absolute. They are or are not significant, that is correct. Perhaps by removing the variables DHJ and 20Y BP from the model, the R2 may still remain high.

Respected reviewer, thank you for you comment! We just want to clarify better methodology beyond the given regression model. For calculation the predictors of RAG we included nine variables of power, agility and cognitive abilities. Forward stepwise linear regression starts from the null model and adds a variable that improves the model the most, one at a time, until the stopping criterion is met. In our case, final (best) model consisted of four variables (T CODS, SJ, DJH, and 20Y BP) which explained 80% of variance. However, excluding the variables DJH and 20Y BP may result in the lower data fit, and therefore may be less suitable to explain RAG. To confirm this, we created new model where RAG was dependent variable, while T CODS and SJ were independent. This model explained only 46% of variance, confirming our considerations that such model may be less suitable to explain RAG. Taking all into account, we are of the opinion that DJH and 20Y BP should be included in model. We hope that reviewer will have understanding for our explanations.

15. It does not coincide with the stated objective in the introduction section, specifically when indicating the "power abilities" variables (line 283-284).

The aim should mention the RAG (criterion) and then the cognitive variables (exploratory).

Changed as suggested: “The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation between cognitive capacities, as measured by the Stroop test, as exploratory variables, and the assessment of Reactive Agility (RAG) as the criterion, in pubescent boys and girls.” (line 85-87).

Changed as suggested: “The primary aim of this study was to examine the connections between cognitive abilities, treated as exploratory variables, and generic reactive agility, considered as the criterion, in pubescent girls and boys”.

16. This can be considered a limitation of the study. However, other limitations should be incorporated as well as strengths of the study, do you think so (line 368).

Some strengths of the study should be noted.

Added as suggested: “Despite the acknowledged limitations, this study is among the first to utilize highly reliable assessment tools (Optojump, Blazepod, Power Timer system) to evaluate power, agility, and cognitive abilities in school children with the primary objective to identify the connections and potential influences among these variables. The gathered data could be used not only to explore the impact of cognitive abilities on RAG performance but also to better understanding of gender disparities in power abilities during this critical phase of motor development.” (line 395-402).