Next Article in Journal
Long Jump Performance Is Not Related to Inter-Limb Asymmetry in Force Application in Isometric and Vertical Jump Tests
Next Article in Special Issue
Patient-Specific 3D Virtual Surgical Planning Using Simulated Fluoroscopic Images to Improve Sacroiliac Joint Fusion
Previous Article in Journal
Shoulder Pain Biomechanics, Rehabilitation and Prevention in Wheelchair Basketball Players: A Narrative Review
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Relationship between Body Center of Mass Velocity and Lower Limb Joint Angles during Advance Lunge in Skilled Male University Fencers

Biomechanics 2023, 3(3), 377-388; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomechanics3030031
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Biomechanics 2023, 3(3), 377-388; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomechanics3030031
Submission received: 3 July 2023 / Revised: 5 August 2023 / Accepted: 10 August 2023 / Published: 18 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Personalized Biomechanics and Orthopedics of the Lower Extremity)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Introduction section need more analysis of the previous studies in this field, please add them.

Method section need sample size calculation. after data gathering please add power of your analysis in the results section.

Author Response

Our point-by-point responses to all comments and suggestions are listed below:

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments 

RE: 225837965

Title: Relationship between body center of mass velocity and lower limb joint angles during advance lunge in skilled male university fencers

Dear Reviewer # 1

We thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and providing the valuable and constructive comments that have helped us to improve the manuscript.

We have responded to all the points raised by you and the other reviewers and have revised the manuscript accordingly. In the manuscript, our changes are highlighted in yellow with red letters.

We hope that the revisions will satisfy your standard.

We greatly appreciate your further review of the revised manuscript.

Our responses to your comments and suggestions (shown in italics) are as follows.

  1. Introduction section need more analysis of the previous studies in this field, please add them.

Thank you for pointing this out. We have done further research on previous studies in this area and have added more citations to previous studies. Please take a moment to review them (Lines 33–34).

  1. Method section need sample size calculation. after data gathering please add power of your analysis in the results section.

Thank you for pointing this out. We have added an explanation of the sample size calculation to the Methods section. In addition, we also added the power of the analysis to the Results section (Table 1). We appreciate your confirmation (Lines 85–88; Table 1).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I congrats on an interesting paper. There are some minor concerns I raised (see the file I enclose).

Best regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing

Author Response

Our point-by-point responses to all comments and suggestions are listed below:

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

RE: 225837965

Title: Relationship between body center of mass velocity and lower limb joint angles during advance lunge in skilled male university fencers

Dear Reviewer # 2

We thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and providing the valuable and constructive comments that have helped us to improve the manuscript.

We have responded to all points raised by you and the other reviewers and have revised the manuscript accordingly. In the manuscript, our changes are highlighted in yellow with red letters.

We hope that the revisions will satisfy your standard.

We greatly appreciate your further review of the revised manuscript.

Our responses to your comments and suggestions (shown in italics) are as follows.

  1. Specify the population under investigation

Thank you for your valuable feedback. As you recommended, we have revised the title of the paper to insert "Skilled Male University Fencers" to identify the study population (lines 3–4). We appreciate your confirmation.

  1. Add more details on sample people. Provide more details on statistics

Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the details of the sample people and statistics to the abstract (lines 11–19). Please take a moment to check it.

  1. Which guideliens statament did the authors use?Relevant dates?

Thank you for pointing this out. There are no specific guidelines for fencing movement research, and we have made decisions regarding trial conditions and protocols for this study based on those of previous studies.

  1. Detail better the study design (observational? cross-sectional?)

Thank you for pointing this out. This study is an observational study. We have revised the entire section to make it easier for readers to understand the study design (line 97). We appreciate your confirmation.

  1. How did the authors choose these tests? Any guidelines or is that routine clinical practice?

Thank you for pointing this out. We have determined the methodology for these tests based on previous research in fencing. We have also added a new citation in the text (Line 122). We appreciate your confirmation.

  1. Report also on:

-missing values

-procedures acceptability

Thank you for pointing this out. The data were acceptable for all procedures in this study, and no missing values were identified. We have mentioned this in the text and would appreciate your confirmation (Line 204).

  1. Do the tests/procedures provoke any harms?

Thank you for your comments. No adverse events due to the testing were observed in any of the fencing athletes who participated in this study.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting study. The authors can address the following questions in the revision. 

  1. Which joints are implicated in controlling the acceleration generated by advance in LWA?
  2. Can the authors provide any recommendations regarding the flexion and extension of specific leg joints to increase peak velocity during lunge?
  3. How might the results of this study contribute to the understanding and improvement of fencing techniques?
  4. Were there any limitations or potential confounding factors that should be considered when interpreting the study's findings?
  5. What are the future research directions or areas for further investigation suggested by this study?

Author Response

Our point-by-point responses to all comments and suggestions are listed below:

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 RE: 225837965

Title: Relationship between body center of mass velocity and lower limb joint angles during advance lunge in skilled male university fencers

General comments
This is an interesting study. The authors can address the following questions in the revision.

Dear Reviewer # 3

We thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and for providing the valuable and constructive comments that have helped us to improve the manuscript.

We have responded to all of the points raised by you and the other reviewers and revised the manuscript accordingly. In the manuscript, the changes are highlighted in yellow with red letters.

We hope that the revisions will satisfy your standard.

We greatly appreciate your further review of the revised manuscript.

Our responses to your comments and suggestions (shown in italics) are as follows.

  1. Which joints are implicated in controlling the acceleration generated by advance in LWA?

Thank you for your question. This study indicates that the joints involved in controlling the acceleration produced by the LWA advance are the rear hip peak flexion angle, rear ankle peak dorsiflexion angle, rear ankle ROM, and front hip peak extension angle. The text has been revised to better convey the above information to the reader (lines 16–20 and 252–254).

  1. Can the authors provide any recommendations regarding the flexion and extension of specific leg joints to increase peak velocity during lunge?

Thank you for your comments. We think it is very important to provide recommendations regarding specific leg joint flexion and extension to increase peak velocity during the lunge. As a suggestion for coaching to increase the peak velocity during the lunge, we believe that in LWOA, it is effective to increase the total range of motion of the rear hip joint during the lunge, while in LWA, it is important to hold the rear knee joint in a lower position with more flexion at the beginning of the lunge phase and to extend the rear and front knee joints significantly at the end. The above information has been added to the text (Lines 346–351).

Further recommendations for training strategies include the importance of training the rear hip flexors and extensors in LWOA, the rear knee flexors and extensors, and the front knee extensors in LWA. We have added this new information to the text (Lines 351–353).

  1. How might the results of this study contribute to the understanding and improvement of fencing techniques?

Thank you for your insightful question. Based on the findings of this study regarding the influence of the advance on the lunge in LWA and the speed factor of the lunge phase, understanding the characteristics of LWA and utilizing them in the evaluation of movements when competing may contribute to the development of new tactics and training plans, etc. For example, when the opponent's advance is fast in response to the opponent's attacking movement during a match, tactics such as launching a counterattack because of the greater hip flexion of the rear leg and the front leg during the transition to the lunge phase can be implemented (Wojciechowski 2019).

As an implication for improving fencing technique, it may be effective in LWOA to increase the total range of motion of the rear leg hip joint during the lunge in order to increase peak velocity during the lunge. In LWA, it may be effective to seek a training strategy to hold the rear leg knee joint in a lower position with more flexion at the beginning of the lunge phase and to extend the front leg knee and the rear leg knee joint to a greater extent at the end of the lunge phase. This information has been reflected in the text (lines 346–351). Thank you for your kind attention.

  1. Were there any limitations or potential confounding factors that should be considered when interpreting the study's findings?

Thank you for this important question. We believe that this study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the study results. The first is that this study was conducted in a constrained environment, i.e., with a non-moving opponent and a target more limited than the actual effective surface in order to strictly control the relevant variables. This is described in the main text. We have added this limitation to the text. Moreover, we conducted the trials without protective gear in order to attach anatomical markers to collect kinematic data. These two different implementation conditions could potentially alter the movement patterns of the fencing athletes. Additionally, possible confounding factors include sleep prior to the test, hydration levels on the day of the test, and nutritional intake; however, we believe these are unlikely to be confounding factors that would significantly affect the outcome of the test (lines 355–360).

  1. What are the future research directions or areas for further investigation suggested by this study?

Thank you for your question. In this study, we focused on the influence of the presence or absence of preliminary movements by the attacker. In the future, as a further development of this study, we would like to conduct a study in an environment similar to that of a game situation, assuming the advancing and retreating of the defender, in order to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship with the defender. We have revised the text to make this more easily understood by the reader (Lines 360–363).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop