Review Reports - Effects of Perceived Effort on Performance and Joint Kinetics During Vertical Jumping

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The publication is methodologically interesting and relevant because it examines the manipulation of perceived effort (PE) as an independent variable in biomechanical measurements and analyses how it changes the kinetic strategy (joint work distribution), not just the overall result (jump height). The authors examine whether a person, by consciously reducing effort, changes not only the level of performance (jump height), but also the movement control strategy (how the work is distributed between ankle–knee–hip). However, I have comments and suggestions, which are presented below.

The Materials and Methods section should be divided into subsections, which would be easier to read: Participants, Experimental protocol, Instrumentation, Data processing, Statistical analysis, etc. Standard calibration procedures may be briefly referenced rather than described in detail, unless deviations from typical protocols were implemented.
The readability of the graph needs to be increased, as the axis labels and titles are now barely legible.
It is unclear whether a standard marker placement protocol was applied (e.g., Plug-in-Gait, Helen Hayes). Marker configuration should be specified.
Please clarify how kinematic data were used to compute joint kinetics via inverse dynamics, and provide additional detail on model assumptions (segment definitions, filtering procedures, joint coordinate systems).
The study is based on PE as a key independent variable; therefore, it is important to explain how perceived effort levels (25–100%) were instructed, monitored, and controlled during the experiment.
It is unclear how the consistency of perceived effort scaling across participants was ensured. Was any anchoring or familiarisation procedure used to help participants interpret percentage effort levels consistently?
I think that the discussion does not reflect all important aspects and could be greatly improved by including them. For example, it does not discuss how reliably participants could differentiate between 25–75% effort levels and how much subjective effort scaling can vary between individuals. Also, the problem of perceived effort reliability is not discussed
There is no reflection on possible intra-individual variability between repetitions or whether participants were consistently able to repeat the same effort level. Similarly, the effect of familiarisation or learning is not discussed
Several important aspects are not sufficiently discussed in the Discussion. I will list below what I find insufficient. Possible variability in how participants interpret and reproduce submaximal perceived effort levels, possible individual variability, and consistency of effort recovery across trials. It is also important to discuss the possible influence of learning or fatigue effects during repeated CMJ trials in this topic. Limited generalizability due to active participants with recreational activities and a single constrained task (CMJ without arm swing). It is recommended to discuss the relatively large individual variability, as shown by the standard deviations, which indicate possible differences in movement strategies. Limited discussion of assumptions of biomechanical models that may affect joint work calculations. Discussion of possible neuromechanical mechanisms explaining why joint contributions vary is needed.
The practical recommendations presented in the findings appear to be stronger than those supported by the results. While the study demonstrates that perceived effort does not proportionally correspond to mechanical output during CMJ, the results are based on a laboratory task in recreationally active individuals and do not evaluate training outcomes or prescription effectiveness. Therefore, these results can be more appropriately interpreted as preliminary, pilot, and initial evidence that effort-based instructions can influence movement strategy. Further studies involving trained populations and more controlled experimental conditions should be conducted before practical recommendations for training instructions can be made.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All detailed comments and suggestions for improvement have been directly integrated within the PDF manuscript, allowing the authors to follow and apply them in the appropriate sections. Once these revisions are addressed, the manuscript would be substantially strengthened and suitable for reconsideration.

I suggest: Major revision

Kind regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for their efforts in addressing the reviewers’ comments. The revisions have improved the overall clarity, structure, and readability of the manuscript, especially in the Materials and Methods and Discussion sections. However, after reading the revised version and the responses provided, several additional methodological issues have emerged that require further clarification:
In response to comment 3, the authors clarify that a custom marker set was used and provide additional details about its implementation. However, it remains unclear how this configuration was validated. Please indicate whether the marker set or segment model has been previously validated, or provide a justification for its use, and discuss possible limitations associated with this method. Another concern is the inverse dynamics approach. Key methodological details are still missing. Please clarify whether the inverse dynamics calculations were performed using a validated software package or custom-written code. If a custom implementation was used, additional information about the calculation process should be provided to ensure reproducibility.
Thank you for your responses to my comment 5. However, I believe that while the procedures described improve experimental consistency, they do not provide objective control or validation of the perceived effort levels reported. In particular, the reliance on participant self-reports and investigator supervision does not ensure that the predicted effort levels translate into consistent or comparable results across or within participants. This makes it difficult to determine whether the reported differences reflect a controlled effort factor or simply variability in their recovery. As a result, the relationship between perceived effort and biomechanical outcomes appears imprecise, and the results should be interpreted with caution.
In addition, one important concern in the statistical analysis is that gender was not included as a significant factor. Given the known differences in neuromuscular control and movement strategies between men and women, combining them into a single analysis without justification may affect the interpretation and reliability of the results. This should also be either justified or acknowledged as a limitation.
Thus, the manuscript has improved after the first revision, but a few more comments that I have made would further strengthen its methodological clarity and the validity of its conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript demonstrates an adequate level of scientific rigor and methodological soundness for publication in Biomechanics. The authors have carefully addressed all reviewer comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly, improving the clarity of presentation, the interpretation of results, and the overall structure. The revisions are clearly indicated and contribute to the overall quality of the paper. In its current form, the manuscript is suitable for publication.

Kind regards

Author Response

Kind regards

Author reply: Thank you for your kind words and constructive review of our submission. We are appreciative of your time volunteered to this process.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors took my comments into account and improved the quality and readability of the publication. The current form of the scientific publication meets the general requirements and can be submitted to the journal Biomechanics. Good luck to the authors in their upcoming works, delving deeper into the field and topic.