A Comparison of Bioelectric and Biomechanical EMG Normalization Techniques in Healthy Older and Young Adults during Walking Gait
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you very much for submitting an article in JFMK. Please, consider the following minor revisions in attachment.
Good work!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please, consider the following point-by-point revisions:
- Introduction (lines, 79-85): The study hypotheses should be raised for each research aim based on the literature. We are grateful for the opportunity to clarify this point and have accordingly revised line 86 to better articulate the study hypotheses in relation to the literature.
- Material and Methods, Participants (lines 88-91): The selection criteria (inclusion and exclusion) and sample power must be described in this chapter. Also, the procedures (PARQ+) should only be described later. Your suggestion was invaluable and prompted us to provide a more detailed description of the selection criteria and sample power in the introduction's first paragraph.
- Material and Methods, Protocols (lines 92-96): The characteristics of the trials have yet to be described. As far as EMG procedures are concerned, you should only add references to guidelines and recommendations that you used to prepare your research. We appreciate the reviewer identifying this issue and the manuscript now correctly reflects the role of the ParQ+ as a participant screening tool.
- Material and Methods, Statistical Analysis (lines 152-163): The effect sizes (eta squared or partial eta squared) should be described in this section. Also, add references to support the procedures carried out. Also, the cut-off values for interpreting effect size and correlation were not presented. We thank the reviewer for highlighting this oversight and we have updated the manuscript to report partial eta squared and provided supporting citations for our procedures and statistical interpretations.
- References: Citations and references should be checked according to the guidelines for authors. For instance: Burden (2010) (lines 306). We thank the reviewer for this comment and have updated mid-sentence citations to include the appropriate numerical reference.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, first of all, thank you for your submission to the Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology. The authors did an overall good job comparing EMG amplitudes between OLD and YOUNG subjects using an EMG torque-scaled (EMGTS) normalization technique and two popular methods of bioelectric EMG normalization, EMGMean and EMGPea.
Still, there are some points that, if improved, could help the work reach its full potential.
Below you can find my comments in detail:The introduction is thorough and clearly addresses the study problem.
The methods section can be improved, characterize the sample in more detail, identify inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as how the n used was calculated.
The results, discussion and conclusion session is properly structured.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagenothing to report. minor editing required
Author Response
The methods section can be improved,
characterize the sample in more detail, identify inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as how the n used was calculated.
We appreciate the reviewer’s insights and have elaborated on the sample characterization, including inclusion and exclusion criteria, in the introduction's first paragraph. Our participants were convenience sampled and our effect sizes are now reported in the results section.
We have made some other changes to the methods section that we hope will improve the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
After the changes made by the authors, I no longer have reservations regarding the manuscript.
Kindest regards
Comments on the Quality of English Languagenothing to report
