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.
The authors have addressed all of the reviewers' comments.
This manuscript is ready for publication.
Congratulations on the interesting work.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Mike Climstein, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
Please, address point-by-point all reviewers' issues (especially Reviewer 2's)
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
no comment
・The instructions are well-detailed and clear in lines 122-153. To enhance clarity both visually and conceptually, creating a flowchart with diagrams would further improve understanding.
・The specific criteria used for selecting the three tasks have not been explicitly outlined in the document. To enhance transparency and emphasize the validity of the research design, we recommend providing a clear explanation of the criteria used for the selection of these tasks. This additional information will aid reviewers in understanding the rationale behind the task choices and contribute to the overall clarity of the study.
To further extend the applicability of the study findings, it may be worthwhile to conduct similar investigations with populations such as stroke patients or orthopedic patients. Drawing comparisons between the current participants and individuals from these cohorts could offer valuable insights for the development of comprehensive rehabilitation strategies. This comparative approach could enhance the generalizability of the study's implications and contribute to the broader understanding of motor performance across different clinical conditions.
The article presents the issue of using movement analysis measures to assess age-related differences in movement kinematics. The issue presented in the article is interesting, providing a basis for development and practical applications, e.g. to assess the effects of rehabilitation or the ability to perform a specific job. Given the generally positive assessment of the article, there are some areas that require expansion or clarification. My main reservations concern the size of the study group and the statistical methods used.
- The research included two groups of 10 people each. How was the number of samples calculated, with what statistical assumptions? This issue is particularly important in view of the fact that the comparison of independent groups of data was carried out using a parametric two-way ANOVA.
- A subsection describing the statistical analysis could be expected in the Methods section. A more detailed and clearer description of the use of statistical tests was expected with underling the support that the given test provides for hypothesis.
- What test was used to check for equality of variances in data sets for two way ANOVA?
- “The Shapiro-Wilk test was performed, due to the sample size of less than 50 people, to assess the normality of age distributions in group 1 [p = 0.39] and group 2 [p = 0.077].” – there seems to be an error in this sentence. It should be expected to test mostly the distribution of the dependent data set to be analyzed.
- Perhaps, due to the small number of study participants, it would be advisable to conduct an analysis using non-parametric tests that only indicate differences between groups in relation to a given task or measures pooled over tasks?
- During the experiments, each person performed three tasks. Was the order in which the tasks were performed random? How the 1-minute break between tasks was determined (on which basis). Is 1 minute break enough to avoid fatigue? What about learning effect?
no comment
- The tasks differed in terms of movement phases. Doesn't that mean the differences in metrics between tasks are obvious? This issue requires discussion in order to dispel doubts.
- The discussion does not refer enough to the results of the study and the hypotheses that the study was intended to prove. One would expect the discussion to be more focused on the issues raised in the hypothesis.
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.