Exploring Kinematic Variations in Clear Hip Circle to Handstand: A Case Study of Performance Styles on Uneven Bars

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The article offers an in-depth descriptive kinematic analysis of gymnasts performing the Clear Hip Circle to Handstand (CHCH) movement, it is almost a detailed specific/clinical analysis on sportswomen whose names and first name abbreviations appear.

We recommend that you simply put the initials of the First and Last Names, as it doesn't fundamentally add value to the article to write the gymnasts' names and could invite criticism, 

- On a general level :

Regarding editorial style, it would be beneficial to improve the structure of the article by creating more coherent blocks of text and better-developed paragraphs to clarify your arguments. In addition, the descriptive analysis would benefit from further development, particularly with regard to methodology. Some of the figures should also include headings for the axes and corresponding units.

We understand that the data collection and processing required considerable effort, however, the correlation tables are not essential to the main section. It would be preferable to include them in an appendix, if possible.

We suggest reworking the article by refining the style and structuring the introduction, problem and hypotheses more rigorously, as they are not sufficiently explicit. The discussion also deserves to be summed up in paragraph-by-paragraph blocks around general ideas.

- On more specific aspects

l158/159. Can you describe the procedure: “Pearson's correlation is used to measure the strength and direction of the linear rela-158 tionship between the performance variables of different gymnasts.” 

l173. Please enter the axis titles with the units. Figure 1(a)

l186. ditto for figure 2(a)

l218. for figure 4(b) missing position values

Rm. The anthropometric characteristics of your gymnasts do not appear: height, dimensions of the segments studied, weight and mass of the segments used to calculate CG.

Question: Are there any specific technical correlations associated with the segment measurements? In other words, are the models dependent on certain anthropometric measurements, or the positioning of the Center of Gravity?

Question: Couldn't critical points appear on your figures to characterize the breakdown of the different parts of the technique, and in particular the transitions? Larger figures (figures 1, 2, 3) would be more appropriate. In the legends to figures 4 and 5, please indicate the names of phases 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Kind regards,

Good luck to you

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for contributing to the substantial improvement of our manuscript.

Please find the detailed responses and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted file.

Kind regards,

authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the manuscript titled "Exploring Kinematic Variations in Clear Hip Circle to Handstand: A Case Study of Performance Styles on Uneven Bars", I believe the study is well-conducted with a solid methodology and clear presentation. The use of the Ariel Performance Analysis System (APAS) and the detailed kinematic analysis provide valuable insights into the variations in gymnasts’ techniques.

Strengths:

The authors have done a commendable job in structuring the study, ensuring clarity and coherence from the introduction to the conclusion. The statistical analysis is appropriate for the research question, and the identification of three distinct techniques for performing the Clear Hip Circle to Handstand (CHCH) is an original contribution to the field of gymnastics biomechanics.

Suggestions for Improvement:

1. Interpretation of Results: While the statistical results are clear, I believe the practical implications could be expanded. The study identifies variations in technique but does not fully explore how these variations might impact performance outcomes or training. Expanding the discussion to explain the relevance of these techniques to different anthropometric factors, flexibility, or strength levels would enhance the manuscript's practical application.
2. Sample Size and Generalization: Although the sample size is appropriate for a case study, it does limit the ability to generalize the findings. I would suggest that the authors address how these findings could be applicable to a broader population or propose future studies with a larger sample to validate the current results.
3. Detailed Biomechanical Explanation: The study identifies different technical approaches, but more explanation could be provided as to why certain gymnasts adopt one technique over another. I would recommend elaborating on the biomechanical reasoning behind these variations, such as differences in muscle activation patterns or energy efficiency. This would provide readers with a deeper understanding of the techniques analyzed.

Overall Recommendation:

In summary, this is a well-executed study with interesting findings that contribute to the understanding of performance variability in gymnastics. However, I recommend minor revisions to enhance the interpretation and practical relevance of the results, particularly in terms of the implications for training and performance optimization.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for contributing to the substantial improvement of our manuscript.

Please find the detailed responses and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted file.

Kind regards,

authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article aims to explore kinematic variations in Clear Hip Circle to Handstand analyzing in particular, the performance styles on uneven bars.

The topic is very interesting and the setting of the experimental protocol is adequate, as well as the structure of the manuscript and its reading.

In my opinion there are points that can be improved especially for a better reading and other considerations useful for improving the presentation of the work.

Line 75: You can only use CHCH as it has already been explained.

Given the complexity of the movement, it would also be useful to use a figure, which perhaps contains the sequence of phases, to better understand the movement analyzed.

In my opinion, I would move the paragraph "Optimal technique model for the CHCH on uneven bars" after the tools part.

The section of Materials and methods, in my opinion, should be more detailed with images (or figures) that represent the experimental setup. For example, what exactly were the landmarks used, was it always the same operator who identified them, how were they marked (with markers?), what was the criterion with which the correlation thresholds are established?

Line 152: Could you explain this part better? What has been done in particular? Was it a system calibration? Is there a reason why one athlete in particular was used?

Line 154: Couldn't standardizing the different starting positions have influenced the results?

It would be useful to have a table listing all the parameters analyzed. In addition, it would be useful to use acronyms for all the parameters analyzed.

Line 163: as for line 152, what does "the practical model of the CHCH has selected the Han athlete as a reference" mean?

In my opinion, lines 163 to 168 are sentences that are more part of the process of methods of analysis than of results, so they should be moved or reformulated.

Line 165: so a normalization was made on the time of 1.1 seconds to compare the results? If so, it should be better explained. Furthermore, shouldn't there be, therefore, 55 samples to be analyzed having acquired at 50Hz?

Looking at the graphs of angular velocities later, it can be seen that the lines are very "broken" or discontinuous between one sample and the next, especially when the velocities increase. Couldn't having acquired such rapid movements at a frequency of 50Hz have been a limiting factor?

The units of measurement in the graphs must be expressed with square brackets []

The names of the athletes and their colors are not clearly visible on the figures, which makes it difficult to visually analyze the graphs. In addition, it would be interesting to have the references of the 4 phases also in the graphs of trajectories and speeds.

Line 212: a new parameter is inserted here, which should be done in Materials and Methods in my opinion. In addition, it is not explained to whom the blue and red lines refer either in the text or in the caption.

Line 221: This representation is very interesting, but to understand it better, we should first show in M&M what those Sticks represent and how they were created. At first glance, it is not possible to understand where the different joints are located. In addition, the images are blurry, you can't read the values on the graphs and the names of the athletes.

Line 221: What was the criterion with which the athletes were divided into the three groups? Has a further analysis been made to divide them into these 3 categories?

Line 248: where does this result come from? How was it calculated?

Line 304-305: on the basis of which analysis do you affirm this? Have statistical analyses also been made with the results of the race?

Lines 308 to 320: how do all these statements relate to the results obtained? Otherwise they seem more like statements to be used in an introduction in my opinion, otherwise I would rephrase everything.

Line 329-330: since the authors analyzed only the parameters related to shoulder, hip and CG I would reformulate the sentence, otherwise it seems that other motor patterns have also been analyzed.

Line 335-336: on the basis of this statement, it could be indicated within the limits of the study not to have considered these factors as well, and therefore, in future works to consider these variables in the analyses as well.

Line 342: in my opinion this is a statement that needs to be revised based on the comment on line 221.

Line 343: again, this is a statement to be reviewed based on the comment on lines 304-305.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for contributing to the substantial improvement of our manuscript.

Please find the detailed responses and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted file.

Kind regards,

authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I'd like to congratulate you on the significant improvement you've made to your article, in particular the care you've taken to enrich its ethical aspects and standardize its content. The document is now more explicit, and the figures benefit from detailed legends, facilitating comprehension and enhancing the quality of your work. These efforts contribute to a clearer presentation and a better appreciation of your research by readers and specialists alike.

The previous suggestions and comments were aimed at reinforcing the scientific rigor and accessibility of your study. As a follow-up to this work, you could explore the prospects of energy modeling, which would provide a valuable frame of reference for technical comparisons and performance optimization in your field.

I wish you all the best for the future and a promising scientific career, which I hope will lead to further advances in this exciting field of study.

Yours sincerely
PhC

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for implementing the changes and answering the questions asked.

The article is significantly improved.