Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript describes a new, 3D model for simulating forces typically experienced by rowers.  Two main innovations are presented with respect to the state of the art: i) drag and lift coefficients were continuously adjusted according to the angle of attack in both horizontal and vertical planes; ii) the area of the blade in both planes was modulated proportionally to the degree of immersion.  In addition to introducing these new elements, the authors allowed a sample of expert rowers to adjust specific parameters of the model with the aim of reproducing a rowing experience as much realistic as possible.  It was found that rowing with this new model and with personalised parameters provided a more realistic feeling of rowing forces than a previous model.  The new model is described precisely and I believe it represents a step forward into our understanding of simulating rowing forces.  I have however one major point with the assessment of the model and a few minor points that I believe the authors should consider.

 

The only frustrating issue I find with this manuscript is the use of effective, effectiveness, efficient, efficiently.  Assessments are limited to how “realistically” the expert rowers could rate their experience with the different models and configurations tested.  A more realistic rating should not be regarded as a more “efficient indoor rowing training opportunity.”  First because it is currently unclear what the authors mean by efficient training; is it related to “improved” (should be defined) rowing technique?  decreased muscular effort for a given power output?  inducing greater physiological adaptations?  Regardless of the definition the authors had in mind for efficiency, it does not seem they collected objective data that could support any statements on better efficiency for the personalised model they tested with respect to other rowing simulators.  I do believe this manuscript would be much stronger had the authors provided a clear definition for efficiency and included specific, objective measurements of efficiency.  Nevertheless, on the other hand, this study contains significant original information on the potential of the proposed model to provide an indoor rowing experience as “realistic” as on water rowing.

 

Some notes clearing defining realisticity would be helpful for readers as well.  Realisticity was based on the rowers perception, which is certainly a valuable information.  Having a more close perception of rowing in the M19 model with personalised parameters does not mean e.g. the body kinematics and forces developed with M19 were more similar to on water rowing than other simulators.  The potential validity of the model proposed should not rely only on the subjects perception objective data showing how similar rowing is with M19 and on water.  I think this study does provide the means for improving rowing training but at the moment statements on this regards should be made very cautiously.  I suggest the authors clearly indicate readers what they mean by realisticity and that objective measures on the similarity of on water rowing and rowing with the personalised M19 model are missing.  It may be worth commenting the greater more accurate reproduction of perception of sweep rowing achieved with the personalised model would not only allow for a more “realistic” training but also to systematically assess potential sources of injury associated with the asymmetries unique to sweep rowing [1–3].

 

The manuscript, in particular introduction, is excessively long.  Introduction should be more focused on the issues with neglecting the angle of attack and blade immersion than on a general review of the state of the art.

 

In the title, last sentence of abstract, conclusion and anywhere else, the use of efficient should be removed or revised critically. 

 

Do you mean even number of rowers in line 167?

 

Is the mirroring of portside rowing on the bow side appropriate?  Temporal differences in force profile between portside and bow side rowers seem to be beneficial [4].

 

Is your statistical model appropriate?  It seems you have a single independent variable with two levels, whereby an inferential test for two distributions would be appropriate rather than ANOVA [5].  Also, did you assess the Gaussianity of your data and the homogeneity of variance, necessary for applying parametric inferential tests?

 

The second clause in lines 563-565 is awkward.

 

There is a formatting issue with the reference in line 714.

 

[1]      N.G.G. Readi, V. Rosso, A. Rainoldi, T.M.M.M.M. Vieira, Do sweep rowers symmetrically activate their low back muscles during indoor rowing?, Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports. 25 (2015) e339-52. doi:10.1111/sms.12319.

[2]      V. Fohanno, A. Nordez, R. Smith, F. Colloud, Asymmetry in elite rowers: effect of ergometer design and stroke rate, Sport. Biomech. 14 (2015) 310–322. doi:10.1080/14763141.2015.1060252.

[3]      S. Parkin,  a V Nowicky, O.M. Rutherford,  a H. McGregor, Do oarsmen have asymmetries in the strength of their back and leg muscles?, J. Sports Sci. 19 (2001) 521–526. doi:10.1080/026404101750238971.

[4]      R.M. Smith, C. Loschner, Biomechanics feedback for rowing., J. Sports Sci. 20 (2002) 783–91. doi:10.1080/026404102320675639.

[5]      B. Dawson, R.G. Trapp, Basic & Clinical Biostatistics, 4th ed., Lange Medical Books-McGraw-Hill, Medical Pub. Division, c2004, New York, 2004.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to revise our manuscript and for giving your invaluable comments to improve the content. We addressed all the remarked points in the revised version of the manuscript. Please see the attachment for our point by point responses.

Best regards,

Ekin Basalp

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Configurable 3D Rowing Model Renders Realistic Forces on a Simulator for an Effective Indoor Training.

Journal: Applied Science

 

The study concerns the proposition of a new rowing model for the blade – water interaction forces, which based on three-dimensional rotation of the oar. Ten rowers participated in this study and aimed to asses’ practical of the rendered forces on the simulator.

The approach of the study appears very original even if the number of patients participated to the study appear lower. The contents of the manuscript are quite interesting by his methodology and through the tools of quantification used.

The manuscript reads smoothly and is easy to understand.  The aims, scope, and results of the study are clearly stated.  I have very much enjoyed reading this paper. I find it interesting and clearly written, and satisfying also all the other publication criteria of the Journal “Applied Science”. The study provides a very valuable addition to this line of research, and adds relevantly to the subject with additional original findings. I thus find that this paper definitively delivers results that will surely be of interest to the readership of the Journal “Applied Science”. Since I have no relevant suggestions for improvement, I warmly recommend publication of this paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for taking the time to read our manuscript and for your comments. In the new manuscript, we shortened the initial submitted version for readibility and did minor revisions for the typos and language. 

Best regards,

Ekin Basalp

Author Response File: Author Response.docx