All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
I have now had the opportunity to read your revised manuscript, and your responses to the reviewers' comments. I believe that you have addressed the concerns raised, and I am happy to accept your manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Mike Climstein, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have adopted all of my comments or given sensible reasons for them. There are no further comments from my side.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The manuscript has been reviewed and further revisions are necessary before the manuscript is suitable for publication.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
I noticed another incorrect reference: Please check the citation of my colleagues Philip Furley and Daniel Memmert. I think it should be this one:
Furley, P., & Memmert, D. (2010). The role of working memory in sport. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 3(2), 171-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2010.526238
not: Furley P, Memmert DJP, skills m. 2010.
no comment
no comment
I thank the authors for addressing grammatical errors. The language has been improved substantially although the Methods section still could use some overseeing by a fluent English speaker as sentences here need to be unambiguous.
No comment
I thank the authors for updating the analysis with additional correlation analysis between years of sports training and weekly practice frequency, and P3 amplitude, variables which were shown by the authors to differ between groups in the initial submission (Table 1) These analyses and the rest of the revisions improve the paper substantially. However, I fully disagree with the authors' interpretation of these findings which are also not fully addressed in Discussion and Conclusion. While the analysis shows no significant correlation (rather the opposite) the authors still go on to conclude that table tennis training is indeed the explanation for the observed differences in the P3 amplitude between athletes and non-athletes.
I would argue that finding no correlation should lead the authors to suggest that other factors such as the specific training schedule, which then again would have to be qualitative in nature (as the amount of weekly hours show a negative correlation which is the opposite of the suggested relationship as stated in the Introduction) for which the authors show no data to support this hypothesis. Also, the negative correlation was only found for one out of three electrodes in a single condition, and not corrected for multiple comparisons, which should be done as has been done thoughtfully for the main analysis. If the authors corrected for multiple comparisons, the association would likely be null, and no effort would have to be made to explain this seemingly spurious association. I would strongly suggest the authors to either carry out adjustment for multiple comparisons in their updated correlation analysis or explain why this was not done and adjust the perceived certainty of the finding accordingly (i.e., indicate that it might be spurious).
Altogether, the authors should highlight the results that speak against their initial hypothesis, which states that table tennis training (and not just being an elite athlete) is associated with increased P3 amplitude. This hypothesis is not supported by the updated correlation analysis, which showed no significant or inverse (likely spurious) associations. Otherwise, the authors would need to argue that the effect of long-term training reaches a plateau after which no effect on the P3 amplitude can be observed, which again would have to be either substantiated by further analyzing interval-varying correlation, for which I do not think the dataset has the statistical power to investigate with certainty, or simply hint at this aspect while being cautious with the interpretation of findings of the main analysis, as the correlation analysis does not support the claim of causality.
Rather, as I have pointed out in earlier revisions, and which have not been mentioned in the updated Discussion, inherent traits (which influence the morphology of the P3 component) of players of differing skill levels could fully explain the small effect sizes observed in the present study. The authors have left out this important point, which I believe is crucial and should at least deserve mentioning. These aspects should be addressed in detail in the Discussion.
Thank you for inviting me again to review the revised manuscript on the Differences visuospatial cognition in table tennis players with different levels of skill-an event-related potential study.
The authors did a good job of addressing the reviewers’ comments. The table and colored words used in their responses are interesting and truly helpful for reviews.
They did a good job by revising the words used in the paper, too. I did find the manuscript to be acceptable for publishing.
The experiment design and analysis method are introduced clearly. They are reasonable and well-explained.
New figures and tables are added and are very informative, which could help people to have a better understanding of their results.
All figures are well-adjusted.
All reviewers agree that the quality of the English needs a lot of work. Please have the paper reviewed by a professional editing service.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The article follows a clear, common structure for describing a scientific study. I did not notice any linguistic deficiencies. Table tennis-specific expressions are used correctly.
I have small comments / questions, mainly related to the theory part:
- page 7, line 78-79 (“These results imply that long-term training under physical and cognitive loading may have a modulatory influence on fundamental task-related information processing ability”): What does this mean in detail? Can you add a more explaining sentence, f.e. in which direction is this “modulatory” influence and what is the effect on the task-related information processing ability.
- p.7, l.85-86 (“Jin et al (2011) demonstrated that badminton players demonstrated stronger memory representations”): It would be interesting if they analyzed badminton players of each playing level or real experts in badminton.
- p.7, l.96-99 (“In light of this, and the diminishing gap between sport skill levels, it is important to determine if elite athletes (high-performing) still have superior cognitive processing performance than amateurs athletes (low-performing), despite the narrowing gap between sport skill levels”): What exactly do you want to say with this sentence? It may be possible to simplify or clarify the sentence. The concrete goal is not clear to me from this.
- p.7, l.104 (“…performance. (Thompson et al., 2008).”: Here you can delete the point before the bracket.
- p.7, l.111 (“Athletes demonstrate greater P3 amplitudes in an action 112 anticipation task than nonathletes (Jin et al., 2011), indicating a potential influence of long-term 113 sport training on the neuroelectric…”): Perhaps it would be important for non-experts in the field of ERP research to know that the P3 wave always deflects / maps negatively. Then the later illustrations could be better understandable for laymen?
- p.8, l.119 (“For instance, Vestberg et al”): there is a dot missing after the et al.
- p.8, l.145-150 (“…it is required to better comprehend the mechanism of cortical activity in athletes. The current study compares the differences between ETT and ATT skill levels, and superiority racket (table tennis) athletes relying on a large number of visuospatial processing (Alder et al., 2014; Piras et al., 2016). If group differences in cognitive processing and cortical activity in visuospatial tasks can be identified, this may provide future table tennis training or unlock the potential of athletes”): Here I miss the concrete assumptions on the causality of the factors. Do table tennis players have fundamentally "better" cognitive functions or are these formed through years of playing tt? Is it possible to train them specifically to become better at table tennis, i.e. to release/unlock the mentioned "potentials"? Currently this is formulated somewhat unspecifically.
- basically (on page 6, line 68): you write about "benefits of long term training", later this wording does not appear. Can you explain in more detail what is meant? And does it make sense to use this term again later?
The methodological approach is impeccable in my view. The research question is defined and is based on prior research.
The recruited number of 54 subjects is also large enough to compare the investigated parameters relatively validly. One could at least note in the discussion that the three groups make the cell size of 18 subjects somewhat small.
In the statistical analysis, I still do not understand why Pearson correlations are used for the demographic variables, "if there is a significant difference in DV and correlation variables will be considered as covariance analysis" (p.10, l.235). This should still be justified.
- p.11, l.267: Can you explain the difference between "sport training" and "number of hours engaged in sport training"? You write "...weekly training frequency within the past six months (t(34) = 3.972, p < .01, d = 1.32), the results show that ETT players had longer sport training (frequency, years) than ATT
players.. [here you can delete one dot] There was no difference between the two athlete groups in terms of the number of hours engaged in sport training (t(34) = 1.966, p = .057)". I do not understand the difference.
- p.11, l.271 & 273: I think "did not" sounds better then "didn't"
- p.12, l.306 or l.312: Sometimes you use incomplete sentences to announce the next investigative parameter (e.g. "For the P3 latency."). Maybe you can do it a little more elegantly.
- p.12, l.305-306: the sentence "Fig. 1 illustrates the grand average ERP results at Fz, Cz, and Pz for three groups and306 Delayed condition and the Non-delayed condition" could mislead readers. Please clarify that an average was taken for each group. At first reading I also thought that all three groups were averaged, which makes no sense.
- discussion: The conclusions that are drawn have been justified in a comprehensible way with reference to the literature. From my point of view from table tennis practice, they are completely comprehensible.
I thank the authors for an interesting study. The authors have examined three groups (2 athlete, 1 non-athlete) with regards to reaction time and event-related potentials. They found a significant difference between groups with high-level athletes (table tennis players) showing quicker reaction times and altered event-related potential, possibly reflecting differences in neural pathways, which could be due to training or inherent traits. Although the study has merits and seems methodologically sound, I have several major concerns and suggestions that need to be addressed, especially with regard to language, basic reporting and statistical considerations before the manuscript can be deemed suited for publication.
The title should be rewritten in grammatically correct English. In general, the manuscript could use the help of a fluent English speaker to correct obvious grammatical errors throughout as well as improve sentence structure. This needs to be done in order for readers to understand the methods used and the reported results without ambiguity.
There is a reference missing in lines 94-96 in the Introduction.
The authors should consider condensing the Introduction as it currently has too much background for the reader to digest. They could consider referencing the following systematic review that investigated the effects of exercise on ERP:
"Gusatovic J, Gramkow MH, Hasselbalch SG, Frederiksen KS. Effects of aerobic exercise on event-related potentials related to cognitive performance: a systematic review. PeerJ. 2022;10:e13604. doi:10.7717/peerj.13604"
How were the participants recruited (advertisement or other means)? Were they compensated?
What was the period of inclusion?
Were experimental procedures carried out at a specific time of day?
Were participants prohibited from strenous exercise prior to experiments?
How did the authors obtain the non-verbal IQ score (which areas of cognition did it test, by whom was it administered, etc.)?
Post-hoc tests should be conducted with adjustment for multiple comparisons as the authors tested 3 electrode sites and three groups. For example Tukeys honestly significant differences test could be applied.
How did the authors arrive at the sample size used in the study besides reflecting similar sample sizes in comparable studies (which the authors themselves conducted)? Was a power calculation done and if not, why was it not done?
Fig 2. is wrongly referenced in the text as Fig 1
The authors do not report the p-values or corresponding confidence intervals for the post-hoc tests.
It would be advisable to provide effect sizes for the point estimates provided for the differences in P3 latency and amplitude between groups.
Could the authors provide correlations between years of training and weekly training with the observed amplitudes of the P3? If a correlation could be shown it would substantiate claims that specific table tennis training could be the driver of the effect.
There is a 60 % heritability of P3 morphology (van Beijsterveldt CE, van Baal GC (2002)). This means that the difference between groups could have arisen due to inherited traits and not as a result of table tennis training. The authors need to investigate whether a association between years of training and the P3 amplitude/latency exists within groups. Also, regardless the authors should discuss the possibility of inherent traits as a possible explanaition for the differences observed.
The authors suggest thorughout the manuscript that elite athletes have improved cognitive abilities due to training which may be substantiated by numerous ERP studies (although our understanding of cognitive abilities reflected by for example P3 is not complete). How do the authors explain then that the non-verbal IQ is lower in elite athletes? If a general effect of racket sports training should increase the cognitive abilities, why is this not reflected in the non-verbal IQ (for which the authors have not mentioned the method of obtaining or the areas tested with the IQ test applied)? This requires more elaboration and discussion as it may undermine the current interpretation of the results.
The authors suggest that the differences observed in P3 amplitudes may be explained by table tennis practice characteristics for which the authors provide no data (training schedule, additional mental exercises, other) to substantiate this claim. This needs to be substantiated or otherwise left out.
The authors state in the conclusion that the amount of time spent practicing table tennis may explain the differences observed between non-athletes and amateur athletes, although (as I have pointed out above) they do not provide evidence that the P3 amplitude/latency are correlated with amount of practice within groups.
I thank the authors for pointing out that longitudinal studies are needed to address whether an observed effect could be causal (preferably in untrained subjects adminstered practice sessions in a randomized fashion).
Altogether, the authors have conducted an interesting study, although the manuscript needs major revisions with regards to especially reporting, grammar/sentence structure, statistics and the interpretation of the data before the work can be deemed acceptable for publication.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript on the Differences visuospatial cognition in table tennis players with different levels of skill-an event-related potential study.
The research topic is both interesting, and the author has done a good job in designing the study, performing analysis, and organizing the manuscript. The introduction is informative and includes important literature references in the field.
Overall, I find the manuscript to be acceptable, with major revisions required.
The experiment design and analysis method are introduced clearly. They are reasonable and well-explained.
The authors did a comprehensive job of analyzing the data and evaluating the validity of the study.
Suggestions:
In the result section, I think the author could do better work organizing their words. It’s a little confusing. Please use more subtitles to separate the results and keep the results introduced clearly.
In the result section, I think the author could add some correlation analysis results about P3 amplitude with behavior and other factors.
Based on the correlation results, the author could do some mediation analysis too.
About table and figures:
For Figure 2, I think the author could use different colors to represent different groups.
In Figure 2, the author should use labels in each subfigure.
And I think the author could use add notes for each figure, instead of listing everything in the main text to explain the figure's content.
In Table, I am confused about the use of the star “*”. If it’s used to label significant Group effect, I think it should be placed next to the variable, not the mean value of the variable in one group.
A Table about the P3 results is necessary. Instead of listing so many statistical results, the author could do a better job of organizing words and adding more interpretations about results.
The author could pay more attention to the details of the writing, such as line 269 on page 11. Two periods are used together
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.