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 dealt with all the concerns of reviewers, and the article is now ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Catherine Myers, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors responded to all of my comments with careful attention and clarity. Literature references are sufficient and figures are properly designed. Raw data is shared in excel file.
no comment
no comment
no comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
The reviewers have agreed that the work is worthy of publication, but needs significant attention prior to publication.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial 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.
**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
In the current study, the authors tested the hypothesis that during map cognition, the expert group would demonstrate a motor expertise advantage, and that significant differences in brain activity between experts and novices would be observed in the frontal and temporal lobes during the memory storage and retrieval phases.
The English language should be improved to ensure that an international audience can clearly understand your paper. Some examples where the
Language could be improved, including lines 73, 93, 316, 319- the current phrasing makes comprehension difficult.
The title of the proposed paper starts with "EEG-based temporal features of ...", but the proposed manuscript focused on the Power Spectral Density values, which are in the frequency domain. Please explain the EEG-based temporal features in detail.
Your Materials and Methods section needs more detail.
i) C3 and C4, and Cz electrodes that lay on the central region were grouped as if they were a part of the parietal regions, the Measuring instruments part, line 133. Since those electrodes stand for the central area, it will be better to keep them in the central region, or the parietal region should be named as centro-parietal. This process has a serious effect on the discussion. I suggest that you clarify this part by adding relevant citations supporting your electrode grouping, or regroup the electrodes.
ii) The computation of the Power spectral density should be clarified. It is not clear how the PSD values were achieved. Have you averaged the spectral values that correspond to each 2-second window?
iii) You have grouped the electrodes in frontal, central, parietal, temporal, and occipital regions. Have you averaged the PSD of the electrodes in the groups to compute the group values, or just summed them?
iv) In line 185, you have declared just the computation of the theta band, but there are some findings of the alpha band in the results section. Line 185 needs a correction by including the computation of the alpha band as well. Moreover, the frequency range of the theta and alpha bands should be given.
v) In the data processing part, the number of artifacts should be reported.
vi) Please explain the rationale behind the selection of 2 seconds in the segmentation procedure (in line 181). What happens if you select 1 second or more?
vii) There are no results in the manuscript about the resting state data. Can you explain why it was recorded?
Some minor issues
i) In line 88, the sentence should start with "Theta" instead of its symbol
ii) In the results section, some of the results are summarized between "()", some of them between "[]".
iii) Colorbars of Figure 5 and Figure 6 can not be read.
iv) The units of PSD in Tables 3 and 4 are missing.
v) What was the stimulus presentation software? Please explain the details about the communication between the EEG amplifier and the stimulus presentation for the timing issues.
-
The study compares the behavioral and neurophysiological responses of professional and amateur orienteering athletes during the processes of map coding and reconstruction. The manuscript is written in technically sound and comprehensible English. The literature review presented in the introduction is adequate and effectively highlights the significance of the study. The figures and tables included are sufficient to support and clarify the results. However, the supplementary materials contain only the EEG data results, while the behavioral data results are not provided. Including the behavioral data in the supplementary files would enhance the transparency and reproducibility of the study.
The study clearly articulates its research question and, through reference to relevant literature, provides a rationale for how the findings address a gap in the existing knowledge. Furthermore, it outlines the types of questions that future studies should pursue to enhance the reliability and depth of the current results. Ethical approval is explicitly stated in the manuscript.
The methodology is clearly presented and supported by appropriate figures. The procedures for EEG data collection, channel grouping, experimental design, and data analysis are described in detail. During the "retrieval" phase, participants were instructed to draw the map on paper while EEG recording was ongoing. However, the analysis section would benefit from a more detailed explanation of how artifacts due to eye movements and muscle activity during this drawing task were identified and removed.
Additionally, the interpretation of increased activity in the frontal region during the retrieval phase in both groups would be strengthened by including references or evidence that this activity is not attributable to muscle artifacts.
The data obtained in the study were analyzed using appropriate statistical methods. The results were effectively visualized through suitable graphical representations. In the discussion section, the findings were thoroughly interpreted and contextualized about relevant studies in the existing literature.
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.