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.
It seems to me that you have addressed satisfactorily all the reviewers' comments, and I am therefore happy to accept the paper for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please address the further comments provided by the Reviewers.
Overall, I appreciate the authors' thorough responses to my previous feedback, and I believe that the revised manuscript has reached a state suitable for publication. However, there are still some minor issues that require attention:
1. At lines 57, 59 and 103, references are missing. The authors refer to specific studies not cited in the manuscript.
2. Line 113, please consider revising the sentence to: "To address the above-listed issues…."
3. On line 130, please consider revising the sentence to: "The informed consent of all participants was obtained and documented (see supplementary materials)."
4. Line 171: Here, authors should provide information on the duration of the familiarization phase.
5. Line 279: It should read "Fig. 6" instead of "Fig. 7."
no comment
no comment
I appreciated that the authors seem to have gotten their English edited by a professional service provider.
no comment
Given that this study does not track the change in neural activation with number of years or practice orienteering, the authors should be careful in their wording, avoiding asserting that there was a change brought on by orienteering (e.g., it could be that people who engage in orienteering were different to begin with).
As you can see, both Reviewers have major concerns with your paper that would require a major revision. Final acceptance of the manuscript is not guaranteed at this stage.
**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 copyediting@peerj.com 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
The manuscript titled ‘Effects of mental rotation on map representation in orienteers - Evidence from behavioral and fNIRS’ presents a study investigating the changes in the behavioral performance of orienteers during rotational orientation and the involvement of the ventral prefrontal cortex in map representation. While the study offers theoretical support for scientific training in orienteering sports programs, there are several concerns that need to be addressed before recommending acceptance.
The introduction lacks clarity in addressing the novelty of the study and establishing clear research objectives. It is important for the authors to provide a stronger rationale for their investigation and present a comprehensive background on the existing knowledge gaps. Furthermore, the hypothesis in the manuscript is not well-developed and lacks novelty. The authors should clearly articulate the unique aspects of their study and explain how it contributes to the current understanding of the subject matter.
Several methodological concerns were also identified. The use of a t-test instead of an ANOVA to detect potential differences between behavioral indicators under different rotational orientations requires further justification. Additionally, critical details such as the Shapiro-Wilk test value and degrees of freedom were omitted in the behavioral results. The type of analysis used in the fNIRS results was also not explicitly mentioned, leading to ambiguity.
Within the correlation analysis section, the explanation of how a person's correlation works is redundant and unnecessary. The authors should focus on the key findings and their implications instead of providing elementary statistical explanations.
In the discussion section, the authors fail to adequately explain the novel aspects of their study and the necessity of its findings. It is important to highlight the study's contributions to the field and discuss potential applications or implications of the results.
The figure numbering is inconsistent between the figures and the corresponding text. To improve organization, it is suggested to combine Figures 1 and 2, as well as Figures 6, 7, 8, and Figures 9 and 10. Furthermore, the figure captions do not provide sufficient information to understand the figures, requiring clearer and more comprehensive explanations. I also suggest improving the Figure's quality because the resolution is quite low.
Throughout the manuscript (title included), sentences are overly long and convoluted, leading to confusion. It is recommended to simplify and clarify the language to enhance readability. Furthermore, thorough proofreading is necessary to address the numerous grammatical errors and typos present in the manuscript.
- The paper needs to review the background on the correlates of map-use and the neural correlates of mental rotation, as well as map-use.
- There are a few errors in English in the abstract, introduction, and throughout.
- Although novelty is not necessarily a publication criterion, it is important to frame the findings with respect to the existing literature in order to understand its contribution. Was the study hypothesis-driven on a distinction between dorsal and ventral lateral PFC? Did it confirm previous results?
- The methods for preprocessing should be more detailed.l What was the low/high frequency filters on the signals?
- What is the basis for determining the PFC subregion localization and to what % is it accurate?
- Were the current results the same when analyzed on a channel by channel basis?
- How do we know the results are not a difficulty signal? Do they hold when comparing correct vs incorrect trials?
- It is not clear whether the study and the results are generally about map-use or whether the results are specific to orienteers. This needs to be discussed.
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.