Matthieu Casteran, matthieu.casteran@univ-lorraine.fr, Kaitlin Cassady, kcass@umich.edu, Andrea d'Avella, a.davella@hsantalucia.it, Tibor Hortobágyi, hortobagyit@ecu.edu, Tyler Fettrow, tfettrow@gmail.com, Boris Cheval, boris.cheval@unige.ch, Pierre Morel, pier.morel@gmail.com, Jessica C. Selinger, j.selinger@queensu.ca, Sylvie Vernazza-Martin, Sylvie.martin@u-paris10.fr, Rachael D. Seidler, rseidler@umich.edu, Matthieu Casteran [matthieu.casteran@univ-lorraine.fr] suggested: lionel bringoux : lionel.bringoux@univ-amu.fr, Andrea d'Avella [a.davella@hsantalucia.it] suggested: Marta Russo (m.russo@hsantalucia.it), Florian Monjo suggested: Nicolas Forestier, Sina Mehdizadeh suggested: major comments:, Sina Mehdizadeh suggested: - The abstract needs a complete re-organization and also needs to include more info about the methods, results, and conclusions. , Sina Mehdizadeh suggested: - I think the Introduction can be shortened and focused more on the specific gap the study is investigating, compensatory mechanisms in fine movements in older adults. , Sina Mehdizadeh suggested: - It is not clear what type of adaptations are required in these simple tasks. In other words, why these tasks were chosen is not clear. This needs to be justified in the Intro or briefly in the Methods., Sina Mehdizadeh suggested: - the authors mentioned in the Intro that they are investigating compensatory mechanisms at the behavioural level but they are doing the analysis based on EMG signals. The EMG signals are at the cellular level (motor units). I am not sure this is considered behaviour., Sina Mehdizadeh suggested: - it is not clear why an ML analysis was needed when they could statistically compare the EMG metrics between the groups., Sina Mehdizadeh suggested: - if the simple arm movement tasks did not show compensatory mechanism differences, then the authors' claim in the Intro that simple tasks are needed to study this mechanism is not valid., Sina Mehdizadeh suggested: - Overall, I am not convinced about this conclusion: "Overall, the present results suggest a compensation process, Sina Mehdizadeh suggested: that modulates planning strategies to maximize equilibrium in older adults. ", Sina Mehdizadeh suggested: minor comments:, Sina Mehdizadeh suggested: - the first four lines of the abstract can be shortened to focus more on the specific problem the study is targeting. , Sina Mehdizadeh suggested: - lines 28-31 belong to the intro of the abstract , Sina Mehdizadeh suggested: - only oral consent? no written?, Florian Monjo suggested: I appreciate the authors' significant efforts in revising the manuscript. Overall, they have satisfactorily addressed my comments. However, a few minor issues remain, particularly some errors in the text., Florian Monjo suggested: Line 216: Please replace “analyse” with “analysis.”, Florian Monjo suggested: Line 219: Remove the parenthesis before "Winter" and place it before the year., Florian Monjo suggested: Line 222: Replace “ofsset” with “offset.”, Florian Monjo suggested: Line 230: Replace “rational” with “rationale.”, Florian Monjo suggested: Line 234: Enclose the year in parentheses., Florian Monjo suggested: Line 301: Consider revising the sentence to: "Scientific literature has reported that the control of whole-body movements changes with age, while the control of arm movements does not.", Florian Monjo suggested: Line 483: Remove the "s" from "harvests.", Florian Monjo suggested: Regarding your response to the comment on oral consent ("The French National Ethics Committee (2019-A01558-49) approved the experiment to be conducted with oral informed consent only. Nonetheless, each participant was included in the study by a medical doctor."), it might be worth incorporating this information into the text.
e.g. John Doe john@doe.com
No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Health & Mov Sci. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct