Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jun 1;18(6):e0285033. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285033

Temporal demands of elite fencing

Rafael Tarragó 1, Lindsay Bottoms 2,*, Xavier Iglesias 1
Editor: Monika Błaszczyszyn3
PMCID: PMC10234521  PMID: 37262081

Abstract

There is no published study that analyses the temporal demands of fencing, in its six Olympic modalities in the same high-level competition. The only existing publications date back decades, with already obsolete regulations, or focus on a specific modality. The aim of this study is to carry out a chronometric analysis of elite fencing at the 2014 Fencing World Championships to determine the existence of differences between its weapons (épée, foil and sabre) and between genders. A total of 96 elite fencers (48 women) of 24 different nationalities were analysed in the final rounds (direct elimination). We undertook observational methodology based on an open and systematic process with ideographic, point and multi-dimensional design. We analysed the work time, rest time, total time, number of stops and work-to-rest ratio. The Lince software was used to record and analyse video data. The coding and recording process of the 83 fights analysed generated a matrix of 5900 records. The quality of the data was verified by checking the validity of the observation instrument and the intraobserver reliability. The mean work time (between Allez and Halte) was 17.9 ± 3.1 s for épée, 5.8 ± 2.5 s for foil and 1 .7 ± 0.4 s for sabre. The fight work-to-rest ratios recorded were 1:0.9, 1:2.6 and 1:9.2 for épée, foil and sabre respectively. The results showed significant differences (p < .05) in the work and rest times between the three fencing weapons. However, there were no differences between fencers of the same weapon according to gender.

Introduction

In the literature, the analysis of work and rest times of fencing in different modalities presents some confusion. There is no study that has carried out an exhaustive and comparative analysis of the six Olympic modalities in the same high-level competition. There are various records published from over 30 years ago [1–4], with more from 2 decades ago [5, 6] and finally some more recently published [7–9]. Throughout the history of fencing, its regulations have often been modified. The most significant change for sabre competitions was after the appearance of electrical equipment in 1988 and the banning of crossing the legs during attacks in the 1990s.

The literature regarding the temporal dynamics of fencers is scarce. The first contributions were made from the 1969 German Championships [4], the 1981 World Championships [2, 3], and in Canadian competitions [1]. In the 1990s, Roi and Pittaluga [6] carried out a temporary analysis of women’s épée, and Iglesias and Rodríguez [10] carried it out for men’s épée and women’s foil. The first study that performs a temporal analysis of women’s sabre was provided by Aquili et al. [7] and of the first for women’s foil was Wylde et al. [9]. The influence of the time factor on the effectiveness of fencing actions has also been analysed in previous studies [8, 10].

Timing is a determining aspect of performance in fencing, therefore, in this article we will analyze many of the timing elements that influence the dynamics of a fight between fencers, such as: the total duration of the bouts, the relationship between the work and non-activity times in the rounds (work-to-rest ratio), the breaks in the three periods of 3 minutes in the rounds of direct elimination, among others.

Turner et al. [11–13] describes the importance of the time factor in the performance of fencers and suggest specific physical training based on the work-rest relationship linked to the literature published to date. The authors propose future work should observe the work/rest ratio of fencing in an important competition, with data separated by weapon and gender, therefore this is the purpose of the current study. The aim of this study is, therefore, to carry out a chronometric analysis of elite fencing in a world championship to determine the existence of differences between its weapons and between the gender modalities. Results from this study will help inform coaches and aid the creation of training plans that can better prepare their fencers for the demands of the bouts in elite level competition.

Materials and methods

Participants

Ninety-six fencers of 24 nationalities were observed, 16 of each fencing modality. We registered 83 bouts (last 32, last 16, quarter finals, semi finals and final) of the 2014 World Fencing Championship. The videos belonged to the International Fencing Federation (https://www.youtube.com/@FIEvideo). The study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Catalan sports research ethics committee (0099S/2912/2010 2607/LA).

Instruments

The observation instrument used was ESGRIMOBS [14] and it was registered with LINCE (v.1.1) [15]. Data was analysed using Microsoft® Excel® 2016 and SPSS Statistics (v.22, Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.).

Procedure

The unit of observation was the time between the calls of Allez and Halte [16]. Bouts were analysed in slow motion, when necessary, instead of in real time.

We analysed:

  • ○ Total Bout Time (TBT): the length of time from the start to finish of the bout

  • ○ Work Time (WT): the total of the intervals of time between the Allez and Halte

  • ○ Total Pause Time (TPT): the sum of seconds that the chronometer is stopped during the bout (PRT+PTBP)

  • ○ Period Rest Time (PRT): the time that elapses between each Halte and Allez of the same period

  • ○ Pause Time Between Periods (PTBP): the rest time that passes between the end of a period and the beginning of the next one

  • ○ Halte (n): Number of arrests of the bout (Halte) during the active phase of the assault (including the Halte at the end of each period)

  • ○ Average Allez Time by bout (AAT): the average time from the referee giving the signal of Allez until Halte

  • ○ Average Halte Time by bout (AHT): the average time that elapses each time the chronometer is stopped, without taking account the PTBP

  • ○ Work-to-rest ratio (W/R): the comparison between the time that the chronometer is running that is stopped during the bout. Specifically, the calculation is made by dividing the AHT by the global AAT of each weapon or period and the resulting value becomes the REST ratio equivalent to each WORK unit.

  • ○ Periods: 1st Period (1PER), 2nd Period (2PER), 3rd Period (3PER), Tie Extra Period (ET_A), Non-Combat Extra Period (ET_B).

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics are presented as means and standard deviations. The Shapiro-Wilks test determined the non-normal distribution. The test of differences for gender, weapon and periods were analysed through non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test with pairwise comparison by Mann-Whitney U test, using the Bonferroni correction.

Results

A summary of the data can be seen in Table 1. We observe how the Effective Combat Time (WT·[WT+PRT]-1), in the overall number of rounds is 32.7±21.7%. In women’s épée (62.5±4.5%) and men’s épée (53.6±9.7%), the percentage of working time is higher than that for women’s foil (31.8±8.2%) and men’s (25.5±9.3%), and both épée and foil show higher activity records than women’s sabre (11.5±1.7%) and men’s sabre (9.4±3.2%). In the WT comparison, the 6 fencing modalities present significant differences when compared to each other, except between genders of the same weapon (p < .05). In the PRT comparison, the 6 fencing modalities present significant differences when compared to each other, except between genders of the same weapon and WF vs ME, MF vs MS, MF vs WS, WF vs MS and WF vs WS (p < .05).

Table 1. Temporal structure of the final phase of 2014 World Fencing Championships.

  Women’s épée Men’s épée Women’s foil Men’s foil Women’s sabre Men’s sabre Total
Bouts (n) 15 15 11 12 15 15 83
TBT (s) 841.0 ± 214.3 1016.1 ± 284.6 992.3 ± 316.9 977.4 ± 322.0 715.7 ± 156.9 832.8 ± 286.0 888.3 ± 279.3
WT (s) 433.8 ± 103.8 444.3 ± 88.0 280.6 ± 112.5 233.9 ± 123.8 70.3 ± 16.6 63.3 ± 14.6 253.8 ± 179.9
TPT (s) 407.2 ± 121.2 571.9 ± 215.9 711.6 ± 253.0 743.5 ± 236.9 645.4 ± 143.2 769.5 ± 276.8 634.5 ± 241.8
PRT (s) 262.6 ± 76.5 417.2 ± 190.0 615.7 ± 236.9 677.7 ± 210.9 548.6 ± 139.3 673.4 ± 279.4 523.3 ± 244.9
PTBP (s) 144.6 ± 51.5 154.7 ± 39.1 95.9 ± 43.2 65.8 ± 65.4 96.8 ± 15.6 96.2 ± 39.6 111.2 ± 52.8
Halte (n) 24.2 ± 4.3 24.9 ± 5.3 43.5 ± 7.0 44.8 ± 5.5 37.4 ± 7.7 42.3 ± 15.1 35.5 ± 11.9
AAT (s) 17.8 ± 2.8 18.1 ± 3.5 6.5 ± 2.6 5.1 ± 2.3 1.9 ± 0.3 1.6 ± 0.5 8.7 ± 7.5
AHT (s) 12.4 ± 2.0 18.6 ± 6.2 14.5 ± 3.6 15.6 ± 3.8 15.5 ± 2.5 16.6 ± 3.4 15.6 ± 4.2
W/R 1: 0.7 1: 1.0 1: 2.2 1: 3.0 1: 8.2 1: 10.4 1: 1.8
Open in a new tab

Note. Values are mean ± SD. Total Bout Time (TBT), Work Time (WT), Total Pause Time (TPT), Period Rest Time (PRT), Pause Time Between Periods (PTBP), Average Allez Time by bout (AAT), Average Halte Time by bout (AHT) and Work-to-rest ratio (W/R).

If we analyze the total relationship between work time (WT) and total breaks (TTP), we observe how the relationship with respect to the total time of the fight (WT/TBT) is lower than the previous values, both in the total of the modalities (28.1±18.0%) and in each one of them (WE 52.0±4.9%; ME 45.2±7.5%; WF 28.7±7.3%; MF 23.7±7.8%; WS 9.9±1.3%; MS 8.1±2.5%). In the comparison of TBT in the 6 modalities, no significant differences were observed except between WS vs ME, WE, MF and WF (p < .05).

In a global analysis, by weapon, we observe that the AAT values are 17.9 ± 3.1s for épée and 5.8 ± 2.5s for foil and 1.7 ± 0.4s for the sabre. On the other hand, the AHT records are 15.5 ±5.5s; 15.1 ±3.7s; 16.0 ±3.0s respectively. Finally, the W/R in épée is 1:0.9, in foil 1:2.6 and in sabre 1:9.2.

We can see evidence of significant differences in the chronometric analysis of fencing bouts depending on the weapon in the different temporal variables: TBT (sabre < épée & foil), WT (sabre < foil < épée), TPT (épée < foil & sabre), PRT (épée < foil & sabre), PTBP (sabre & foil < épée), Halte (épée < sabre < foil). The most interesting records in this temporal are the significant differences that are evident in the AAT, with much higher records being observed in men’s (18.2±3.4s) and women’s (17.8±2.8s) épée compared to those observed in men’s (5.1±2.3s) and women’s (6.5±2.6s) foil. In these two modalities, there are no differences between genders in the same weapon. Sabre clearly shows lower AAT values than foil and épée (AAT: sabre < foil < épée) (p < .05). On the whole, women have lower records in Total Pause Time (TPT), Period Rest Time (PRT) and Average Halte Time by bout (AHT) compared to men (p < .05).

Fig 1 shows us the relationship between work time and break time in fights, in this case considering both recovery times during fight periods, as well as rest times between statutory periods. The inverse relationship between % Work Time (WT·[WT+TPT]-1) and % Total Rest Time (TPT·[WT+TPT]-1) in matches of the final phase of the 2014 World Fencing Championship can be observed in Fig 1.

Fig 1. Relationship between % Work Time (WT·[WT+TPT]-1) and % Total Pause Time (TPT·[WT+TPT]-1) in bouts of the final phase of 2014 World Fencing Championships.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

In women’s épée, values close to a 50% relationship between work time (WT) and rest time (TPT) are observed in the three regular periods. During the one-minute extra time working time values are slightly lower. From the comparison between the three periods of 3 minutes, the differences (p < .05) in the average work time (AAT) between Allez and Halte is reduced as the bout progresses such that the AAT is less in the second period than the first and less again in the third period (Table 2).

Table 2. Temporal structure of the final phase of 2014 World Épée Championship according to the bout periods.

  1PER 2PER 3PER ET_A ET_B  
Men’s épée                               χ2(2)
Bouts (n) 15 15 14 3 1  
TBT (s) 363.6 ± 135.2 372.0 ± 134.2 284.7 ± 192.1 21.7 ± 8.4 112.3     12.196 αγ$
WT (s) 162.0 ± 43.3 163.1 ± 38.2 119.7 ± 61.2 14.4 ± 4.4 58.4     12.981 αγ$
TPT (s) 201.7 ± 100.4 208.9 ± 105.6 165.0 ± 140.6 22.1     53.9     10.787 αγ$
PRT (s) 140.4 ± 74.2 145.6 ± 84.5 156.6 ± 141.6 22.1     53.9      
PTBP (s) 73.8 ± 22.3 78.3 ± 20.0 29.5 ± 10.9             29.422 &#γ
Halte (n) 8.5 ± 4.2 7.8 ± 2.7 8.6 ± 4.8 1.3 ± 0.6 4.0      
AAT (s) 25.0 ± 14.0 23.8 ± 10.3 15.1 ± 6.6 12.8 ± 7.1 14.6     12.733 &#γ
AHT (s) 16.9 ± 4.7 19.5 ± 9.5 19.0 ± 9.5 22.1     18.0      
W/R 1: 0.7 1: 0.8 1: 1.3 1: 1.7 1: 1.2  
Women’s épée                              χ2(2)
Bouts (n) 15 15 14 2 2  
TBT (s) 283.9 ± 109.3 313.4 ± 105.5 230.7 ± 112.5 70.0 ± 52.3 143.0 ± 22.9 9.904
WT (s) 150.8 ± 49.0 155.7 ± 40.6 122.6 ± 54.4 33.6 ± 17.1 62.9 ± 1.2 10.003 αγ$
TPT (s) 133.1 ± 63.6 157.7 ± 73.1 108.1 ± 65.0 36.4 ± 35.2 80.1 ± 21.7 n.s.
PRT (s) 73.9 ± 29.7 99.2 ± 40.7 104.4 ± 60.8 36.4 ± 35.2 80.1 ± 21.7 n.s.
PTBP (s) 69.1 ± 31.4 69.7 ± 31.2 39.0 ± 11.3             26.196 &#αβγδ
Halte (n) 6.27 ± 3.4 8.7 ± 3.8 8.1 ± 4.2 3.0 ± 1.4 9.5 ± 0.7 n.s.
AAT (s) 30.4 ± 15.0 21.1 ± 10.4 17.5 ± 7.9 11.1 ± 0.5 6.6 ± 0.4 17.060 *&αβγδ$
AHT (s) 14.1 ± 7.3 12.2 ± 3.4 13.1 ± 3.2 16.0 ± 6.3 9.3 ± 1.8 n.s.
W/R 1: 0.5 1: 0.6 1: 0.7 1: 1.4 1: 1.4  
Open in a new tab

Note. Kruskal-Wallis test χ2(2) p < .05: 1PER > 2PER

*; 2PER > 3PER

#; 1PER > 3PER &; 1PER > ET_A α; 1PER > ET_B β; 2PER > ET_A

γ; 2PER > ET_B

δ; 3PER < ET_A $.

In Table 2 it can be seen how the temporal records in men’s épée are similar to those of women’s épée, however, men show shorter rest times (TPT & AHT) than women (p < .05), which implies that their work times (WT) represent approximately 45% of the total fight time (TBT). Men’s épée shows the same tendency for fight times (AAT) to decrease as the periods advance, but not with the same level of statistical significance.

Table 3 presents the results of foil where we can see that both women and men have lower (p < .05) fight action times (WT & AAT) than épée and higher than sabre representing values close to 25% of work time in the assault (WT) in relation to the total time of the fights (TBT). In women’s foil, a decrease in work and rest times (WT & TPT) between the first and the second period is observed (p < .05). In men’s foil matches, similar records can be seen to women’s foil in relation to the different modalities of analysis, with no significant differences between fencers of different genders in foil. This is contrary in épée in which we observed that 93% of the fights reach the 3rd period, whereas in foil, only 17% of the observed fights reached the third period.

Table 3. Temporal structure of the final phase of 2014 World Foil& Sabre Championship according to the bout periods.

  1PER 2PER 3PER   1PER 2PER 3PER  
  Women’s foil χ2(2) Men’s foil χ2(2)
Bouts (n) 11 10 2   12 7 2  
TBT (s) 630.8 ± 230.0 303.5 ± 263.7 470.3 ± 254.5 6.704 * 710.5 ± 149.6 378.9 ± 272.6 275.3 ± 257.0 9.668 *&
WT (s) 176.3 ± 20.1 83.5 ± 67.9 155.9 ± 45.6 9.622 * 163.1 ± 29.8 94.8 ± 70.6 92.8 ± 97.9 6.939 *
TPT (s) 454.5 ± 65.6 220.0 ± 212.1 314.3 ± 209.0 9.622 * 547.3 ± 161.8 284.1 ± 220.0 182.5 ± 159.1 8.742 *&
PRT (s) 376.6 ± 31.7 200.2 ± 212.4 314.3 ± 209.0   496.3 ± 185.4 259.0 ± 208.9 182.5 ± 159.1 9.668 *&
PTBP (s) 85.7 ± 28.8 99.0 ± 9.3       8.546 * 87.6 ± 10.9 88.1 ± 3.4        
Halte (n) 28.1 ± 11.0 12.8 ± 10.7 21.0 ± 15.6 6.653 * 34.4 ± 9.5 14.4 ± 9.0 12.0 ± 7.1 11.226 *&
AAT (s) 9.3 ± 10.0 9.2 ± 12.5 9.1 ± 4.6   5.4 ± 2.6 6.5 ± 3.9 6.5 ± 4.4  
AHT (s) 13.7 ± 4.2 16.9 ± 5.9 16.7 ± 2.5   14.9 ± 3.2 18.1 ± 6.6 15.1 ± 4.8  
W/R 1: 1.5 1: 1.8 1: 1.8   1: 2.8 1: 2.8 1: 2.3  
  Women’s Sabre  χ2(2) Men’s Sabre  χ2(2)
Bouts (n) 15 15         15 15        
TBT (s) 360.7 ± 89.3 355.0 ± 123.4         413.5 ± 109.9 413.5 ± 233.9        
WT (s) 32.8 ± 10.8 37.5 ± 12.4         31.9 ± 8.7 31.4 ± 13.0        
TPT (s) 327.9 ± 80.9 317.6 ± 113.4         387.4 ± 68.6 382.1 ± 224.7        
PRT (s) 231.1 ± 73.9 317.6 ± 113.4       4.047π 291.2 ± 88.5 382.1 ± 224.7        
PTBP (s) 96.8 ± 15.6               96.2 ± 39.6              
Halte (n) 17.9 ± 5.0 19.5 ± 5.1         21.1 ± 6.2 21.2 ± 11.2        
AAT (s) 1.8 ± 0.4 1.9 ± 0.4         1.6 ± 0.5 1.7 ± 0.8        
AHT (s) 13.8 ± 2.9 16.9 ± 3.5       6.297π 14.5 ± 2.2 19.0 ± 5.1       8.073π
W/R 1: 7.5 1: 8.8         1: 9.2 1: 11.3        
Open in a new tab

Note. Kruskal-Wallis test χ2(2) p < .05: 1PER > 2 PER

*; 1PER < 2PER π; 1PER > 3PER &

Sabre bouts present working time percentages (WT) of less than 10% of the total bout time (TBT), with time records for both WT and AAT being much lower in sabre than in foil and épée. In relation to the mean activity times between allez and halte (AAT), in men’s and women’s sabre, unlike épée, the mean values of the 2nd period are similar to those of the first period, while in foil and épée they are not. Differences can be seen in the average rest times in the rounds (AHT), with sabre having greater fight stopping times in the second period in relation to the first (Table 3).

Discussion

This is the first study to analyse all six modalities of fencing in the same competition and to compare the temporary structure in international elite fencers. The first studies were carried out at the 1981 World Championship [1, 3]. At this time the direct elimination rounds were ten hits and 10 minutes. In the 1990s, direct elimination began to be played in two or three rounds with 5 hits, until reaching the current system in which the winner must complete 15 hits or have the highest number of hits at the end of 9 minutes, and the additional minute, if necessary [16]. We must consider the existing differences in global times (TBT, WT, TPT. . .) as a product of different rules on the duration of the bouts over several decades. However, the average values (AAT and AHT) as well as the work-to-rest ratios are not necessarily affected by the change in fight time or the number of hits. A summary table of this data can be found in Table 4.

Table 4. Comparative of temporal structure in official competitions.

Weapon Data   TBT (s) WT (s) TPT (s) AAT (s) AHT (s) W/R
WE World Championship 2014 * 841.0 ± 214.3 433.8 ± 103.8 407.2 ± 121.2 17.8 ± 2.8 12.4 ± 2.0 1: 0.7
Pittaluga & Roi (1999) α 623.0 ± 151.0 366.0 ± 109.0 263.0 ± 71.0 16.5 ± 4.2 7.9 ± 2.7 1: 0.5
ME World Championship 2014 * 1016.1 ± 284.6 444.3 ± 88.0 571.9 ± 215.9 18.1 ± 3.5 18.6 ± 6.2 1: 1.0
Pittaluga & Roi (1999) α 728.0 ± 247.0 302.0 ± 86.0 425.0 ± 162.0 12.7 ± 7.6 18.2 ± 12.3 1: 1.4
World Championship 1981 β 570.0 410.0 160.0 18.5 11.5 1: 0.6
WF World Championship 2014 * 992.3 ± 316.9 280.6 ± 112.5 711.6 ± 253.0 6.5 ± 2.6 14.5 ± 3.6 1: 2.2
World Championship 1981 β 615.0 310.0 305.0 8.7 9.7 1: 1.1
MF World Championship 2014 * 977.4 ± 322.0 233.9 ± 123.8 743.5 ± 236.9 5.1 ± 2.3 15.6 ± 3.8 1: 3.0
Pittaluga & Roi (1999) α 997.0 ± 227.0 253.0 ± 82.0 745.0 ± 145.0 5.2 ± 3.5 15.6 ± 12.8 1: 3.0
World Championship 1981 β 660.0 338.0 322.0 8.6 11.0 1: 1.3
WS World Championship 2014 * 715.7 ± 156.9 70.3 ± 16.6 645.4 ± 143.2 1.9 ± 0.3 15.5 ± 2.5 1: 8.2
World Cup 2009–10 $ 417.9 ± 99.5 71.6 ± 21.8 346.3 ± 93.7 2.9 ± 0.9 14.5 ± 3.2 1: 5.1
MS World Championship 2014 * 832.8 ± 286.0 63.3 ± 14.6 769.5 ± 276.8 1.6 ± 0.5 16.6 ± 3.4 1: 10.4
World Cup 2009–10 $ 516.2 ± 81.6 70.7 ± 17.2 445.5 ± 72.8 2.5 ± 0.6 16.5 ± 2.7 1: 6.5
World Championship 1981 β 525.0 230.0 295.0 5.2 9.4 1: 1.8
Open in a new tab

Note.

* Our data; α Data of Pittaluga & Roi [5] in Aquilli [7]

$ Aquilli et al. [7]; β Marini [3] and Lavoie et al. [1].

Marini [3] analysed the 1981 World Fencing Championships, concluding that the WT represented the 71.9% of the TBT for ME, values very different from those found by Pittaluga and Roi [5], 41.5%, and us 43.7%. We need to consider that these studies were carried out 30 years before, when the bouts were only to 10 hits and with a duration of 10 minutes. For WE bouts, Pittaluga and Roi [5] observed the WT to be 58.7% of the TBT, and we found it to be 51.6%. We do not have any previous records of women’s épée which was incorporated for the first time into a world championship in 1989 [16].

The results of sabre were the other extreme, with 9.8% in WS and 7.6% in MS, something far from the results of Aquili et al. [7], which were 17.1% for WS and 13.7% for MS, and even more for those of Marini [3], 43.8% for MS. Sabre rules have changed significantly over the years especially as there was no electrical signalling system in 1984 for sabre and fencers were allowed to cross their legs (fleche) during the fight. We do not have any previous records since women’s sabre was incorporated for the first time into a world championship in 1999 [16].

Foil is placed in an intermediate term, representing the WT 28.3% of the TBT in WF and 23.9% in MF. These values are very similar to those obtained for MF by Pittaluga and Roi [5], which was 25.4%, although very different from 50.4% and 51.2% obtained by Marini [3], and 63% and 54% recorded by Waterloh et al. [4] for WF and MF respectively. In the case of foil, we can see how the work-to-rest ratio is almost doubled in favour of rest between the two world championships. A probable cause could also be a regulatory change, in particular the required time was modified in foil for the achievement of a double hit by the two fencers, going from 800 ms in 1981 to 300 ms in 2014.

Perhaps the most interesting finding of this study is related to the Allez mean time (AAT). The values range between 1.6 s (±0.5) for MS and 18.1 s (±3.5) for ME, showing significant differences (p < .05) in both with the rest of the disciplines of fencing, but without gender differences in the same weapon.

The activity values (AAT) are very different in the three weapons, being less than 2 seconds in sabre, close to 6 seconds in foil and 18 seconds in épée. Our results agree with Aquili et al. [7] on some of the differences between men’s sabre and women’s sabre. Men have higher values than women in TBT and TPT, while women have higher values than men in WT and AAT. The W/R is also higher in men in both studies. However, Aquili et al. [7] found significant differences between male and female sabre in TBT, TPT and W/R, while in our work no significant differences were found between men and women’s sabre in any of the time records. In sabre, both opponents want to have the initiative, which is why sabre has become a weapon with a lot of physical power, with immediate and very explosive actions motivated by the regulations and the new blocking times of the apparatus. In the appearance of the electric sabre in the 90s, the detection of the double hit occurred with a difference between hits of 400 ms. In our study, the FIE rules reduced these values to 130 ms.

The description of the W/R in women’s foil of 1:1.1 made by Wylde et al. [9] does not exactly respond to the periods of work and rest that we have described in this work. While we analysed the pause time between the Halt and Allez/Play referee’s calls, these authors performed an analysis comparing the movements according to intensity and considered low-intensity actions not only during the pauses between hits. One of the factors that affects the work and rest times is non-combativity–when a minute passes without a hit scored. Decades ago, this concept did not exist. This issue mainly occurs in épée. Specifically, in ME we observed four periods of 3 minutes with non-combativity, and six in WE.

The temporal parameter that has the most similarity between the three weapons is the AHT, which reached its minimum value in the first period for the six modalities. Iglesias et al. [10] gave the following explanation for this circumstance, at the end of the bouts the fencers are under increasing environmental pressure (influence of space, time, scoreboard…), which can lead them to take a longer rest each time the bout is stopped, in order to have more time for tactical thinking.

The fight work-to-rest ratios recorded in the present study were 1:0.9, 1:2.6 and 1:9.2 for épée, foil and sabre respectively. These differences between weapons could suggest different energy systems are being utilised during competition. Oates et al. [17] has highlighted that blood lactate concentrations across all weapons are below the onset of blood lactate accumulation (4mmol.L-1) with foil ~ 2.4 mmol∙L-1 [18] and épée ~2.7 mmol∙L-1 [19], suggesting a relatively low reliance on the lactic acid system. The W/R of sabre is the lowest at 1:0.9 which suggests there is a greater reliance on the alactic energy system compared to épée and foil. However, several authors have a general agreement that all weapons rely on the alactic energy system to provide explosive movements such as the lunge [11, 19, 20]. There has been one study by Yang et al. [21] which has specifically reported the energetics of épée fencing and found that 80–90% of a fight utilises the aerobic energy system and increases as a fight progresses. Further research is required on the energetics of fencing to fully understand the differences between weapons.

Practical applications

The differences between weapons in relation to the W/R may be a factor in considering the conditioning programme for fencers. Turner et al. [11, 12] determined that the technical and tactical differences between each weapon may in part explain some of the variance in the temporal parameters, but these differences do not necessarily involve specific strength and conditioning training. Whereas some authors [1, 20] contradicted this by indicating that the fencing coaches should focus on replicating the demands of fencing competition to train their fencers. For this reason, knowing the W/R and other specific temporal parameters of each weapon ensures the best preparation of the fencers and helps to simulate the demands of a competitive bout.

Wylde et al. [9] suggests, in foil, conditioning programs should focus mainly in alactic anaerobic activities. It also proposes to develop aerobic competition to improve recovery between hits and bouts. These assessments agree with those of a previous study of women’s épée fencing [20] but contradicts with Turner et al. [13] who suggests similar conditioning for all weapons. The work-to-rest values from the current study are significantly different with sabre being 1 .7 ± 0.4 s and épée being 17.9 ± 3.1 s which suggests conditioning should be different between weapons to prepare them for competition. However, the current results demonstrate that there is no need to differentiate between the physical training of women and men of the same weapon.

Conclusion

We conclude that there are significant differences in the work and rest times between the three fencing weapons. Likewise, there are no differences between fencers of the same weapon according to gender, except for lower rest values in women’s épée compared to men’s. There are significant differences between the working times in the three fencing weapons, highlighting the great differences in the mean values observed, which are 17.9 ± 3.1 s for épée, 5.8 ± 2.5 s for foil and 1 .7 ± 0.4 s for sabre. Finally, the work-to-rest ratios recorded in the final phases of the fencing world championship was 1:0.9 in épée, 1:2.6 in foil and 1:9.2 in sabre.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Agustí Gasset and Juanjo Michavila for their assistance in the initial phases of this study.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by the Ministerio de Universidades (Spain) in the form of a Mobility Stays for Professors & Researchers in Foreign Centers grant to XI [PRX21/00210] and by the Ministerio de Cultura y Deporte, Consejo Superior de Deportes (Spain) and European Union in the form of a grant to XI & RT [EXP_74847; 2023].

References

  • 1.Lavoie J, Léger L, Pitre R, Marini J. Compétitions d’escrime. Épée. Analyse des durées et distances de déplacement. Medicine du Sport. 1985;5: 279–283. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lavoie JM, Léger L, Marini JF. Comparaisons anthropométriques et physiologiques de deux niveaux d’escrimeurs compétitifs. La Revue Québécoise de l’Activité Physique. 1984;3: 91–95. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Marini JF. Analyse des assauts d’escrime. Considérations énergétiques. Évaluation de la valeur physique. EPS Travaux et Recherches. 1984;7: 176–178. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Waterloh E, Rittel H, Neisel G, Leide E. La charge physique pendant la compétition d’escrime. Cinésiologie. 56: 31–56. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Pittaluga I, Roi GS. Analisi cinematica della prestazione. Proceedings of the Congress Il modello di prestazione della scherma moderna. Padova; 1999. Available: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=+Analisi+cinematica+della+prestazione:+Proceedings+of+the+Congress+%22Il+modello+di+prestazione+della+scherma+moderna%22&author=Pittaluga+I.&author=Roi+G.+S.&publication_year=1999 [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Roi GS, Pittaluga I. Time-motion analysis in women’s sword fencing. Proceedings of the fourth IOC Congress on Sport Sciences. 1997. pp. 22–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Aquili A, Tancredi V, Triossi T, de Sanctis D, Padua E, D’Arcangelo G, et al. Performance analysis in saber. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27: 624–630. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318257803f [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tarragó R, Iglesias X. Effectiveness of technical actions in elite men’s épée according to their spatial and temporal distribution. Apunts Educación física y deportes. 2016;125: 79–89. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wylde MJ, Tan FHY, O’Donoghue PG. A time-motion analysis of elite women’s foil fencing. Int J Perform Anal Sport. 2013;13: 365–376. doi: 10.1080/24748668.2013.11868654 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Iglesias X, Gasset A, González C, Anguera MT. Interacción competitiva y presión ambiental en deportes de combate: Aplicación de la metodología observacional. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología del Ejercicio y el Deporte. 1995;5: 267–282. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Turner A, James N, Dimitriou L, Greenhalgh A, Moody J, Fulcher D, et al. Determinants of olympic fencing performance and implications for strength and conditioning training. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28: 3001–3011. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000478 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Turner AN, Bishop CJ, Cree JA, Edwards ML, Chavda S, Read PJ, et al. Do fencers require a Weapon-Specific approach to strength and conditioning training? J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31: 1662–1668. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001637 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Turner A, Miller S, Stewart P, Cree J, Ingram R, Dimitriou L, et al. Strength and conditioning for fencing. Strength Cond J. 2013;35: 1–9. doi: 10.1519/SSC.0B013E31826E7283 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tarragó R. Estructura temporal, interacción táctica y eficacia en asaltos de esgrima de alto nivel. Universitat de Barcelona. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gabin B, Camerino O, Anguera MT, Castañer M. Lince: multiplatform sport analysis software. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012;46: 4692–4694. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.FIE. Technical Rules. 2022 [cited 22 Jul 2022]. Available: s://fie.org/fie/documents/rule
  • 17.Oates LW, Price MJ, Bottoms L. Physiological demands of fencing: A narrative review. Journal of Elite Sport Performance. 2023. 10.54080/JPBK7315 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bottoms L, Tarragó R, Muñiz D, Chaverri D, Irurtia, Castizo-Olier J, et al. Physiological demands and motion analysis of elite foil fencing. PLoS One. 2023;18. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281600 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Oates LW, Campbell IG, Iglesias X, Price MJ, Muniz-Pumares D, Bottoms LM. The physiological demands of elite epée fencers during competition. Int J Perform Anal Sport. 2019;19: 76–89. doi: 10.1080/24748668.2018.1563858 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bottoms L, Sinclair J, Gabrysz T, Gabrysz U, Price M. Physiological Responses and Energy Expenditure To Simulated Epee Fencing in Elite Female Fencers. Serbian Journal of Sports Sciences. 2011;5: 17–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Yang WH, Park JH, Shin YC, Kim J. Physiological Profiling and Energy System Contributions During Simulated Epée Matches in Elite Fencers. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2022;17: 943–950. doi: 10.1123/IJSPP.2021-0497 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Monika Błaszczyszyn

27 Mar 2023

PONE-D-23-04357Work-to-rest Ratios in Elite FencingPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bottoms,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 11 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Monika Błaszczyszyn

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The subject of the study is very interesting. I am very pleased that these kinds of research investigations are also being created. In my opinion, thanks to such studies we can better understand the load of athletes in fencing. These findings can be applied within the training environment and performance enhancement. I also believe that the analysis of temporal relationships within weapons will help other potential researchers to follow in detail, for example, the physiological aspects of the load during matches or training. Adjusting training according to the data obtained can ensure performance growth. The authors rightly point out that current knowledge in this issue is based on research information that is "relatively" old. It is necessary to mention that today's fencing is different from the fencing that was practiced 30 years ago. It can be argued that fencing has definitely gotten faster.

The title of the manuscript is too specific, focused on one part of the solved problem. Wouldn't it be better to introduce Analysis of the Time Interactions in Elite Fencing? In my opinion, words should not be repeated in the article title and keywords. The abstract is apt. The only thing I would modify: it is not clear what the average working time and work-to-rest ratios are. The results in Abstract are detailed, but there is no explanation of the time intervals. Maybe it should generalized in this part. Perhaps at the end of the abstract I would emphasize where the results can be applied.

In the Introduction, the authors rely on relevant data and it is possible to deduce exactly what goal they are pursuing.

Methodology:

I would point out here that this type of research can be done and facilitated through machine learning/artificial intelligence. A large number of records can cause errors ("human mistakes"). The beginning and end moments of the analyzed time periods could have been better defined. The number of matches analyzed is admirable.

The results are presented clearly.

It is important to realize that the length of the matches, the intensity of the matches, etc. are affected (in connection with the presented study) by a number of other factors: the quality of the opponent, the surrounding environment, the referee, the importance of the match (final vs. 1st elimination match), the moment in time within day etc.

In further studies, it would be interesting to also determine the number of individual attacks or defensive maneuvers. These data could be valuable compared with the results of previous studies (20, 30 years ago). Thanks to such results, coaches and fencers could transform training plans and resources.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

This is generally a well written manuscript. It is an interesting study that covers a very specific and important topic for the scientific and sport community, into a previously under researched area providing new data and findings. Overall, this is a paper that could eventually make a useful contribution to the literature

Although simple in methodology, it advances our knowledge on whether different factors such as gender and weapon may affect time analysis of elite fencers

The introduction is to the point. Although there is limited information in this topic, the review of the literature is adequate giving sufficient, extensive and detailed attention to the time motion fencing analysis, including almost all variables seem to be important in fencing competition

What is included in the methods is generally clear and sufficiently detailed.

The results are both presented statistically and substantively meaningful. Tables Figures and their relative legends are quite informative.

In the discussion section authors highlighted the importance of this paper and answered all the questions set out and did a good job of synthesizing the literature.

The writing style is clear, concise and correct.

A light but balanced critic in some points of the article will help the reader to associate the existing literature and the necessity of the future studies. Please, improve in the discussion section the relationship between time analysis and fencing energetics. Can we propose different energetic mechanisms for each weapon? No more than a paragraph, please.

What impressed me in this review are the conclusions in which the authors convince me that they are deep experts of the fencing science. The future researchers have to take into consideration that the necessary physical and functional demands of fencing are multifactorial and cannot be evaluated separately in the laboratory, but rather in association with the opponent’s behavior.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Štefan Balkó

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jun 1;18(6):e0285033. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285033.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

12 Apr 2023

Thank you for reviewing our paper. We have gone through the feedback and tried to make the amendments suggested. Hopefully this has improved the manuscript.

Reviewer1: Reviewer #1: The subject of the study is very interesting. I am very pleased that these kinds of research investigations are also being created. In my opinion, thanks to such studies we can better understand the load of athletes in fencing. These findings can be applied within the training environment and performance enhancement. I also believe that the analysis of temporal relationships within weapons will help other potential researchers to follow in detail, for example, the physiological aspects of the load during matches or training. Adjusting training according to the data obtained can ensure performance growth. The authors rightly point out that current knowledge in this issue is based on research information that is "relatively" old. It is necessary to mention that today's fencing is different from the fencing that was practiced 30 years ago. It can be argued that fencing has definitely gotten faster.

Response: Thank you for the positive comments about our paper.

Reviewer 1: The title of the manuscript is too specific, focused on one part of the solved problem. Wouldn't it be better to introduce Analysis of the Time Interactions in Elite Fencing?

Response: Thank you for the suggestion, we have now amended the title to ‘Temporal demands of elite fencing’ to reflect this.

Reviewer 1: In my opinion, words should not be repeated in the article title and keywords.

Response: We have now changed the keywords to be different to those in the title.

Reviewer 1: The abstract is apt. The only thing I would modify: it is not clear what the average working time and work-to-rest ratios are.

Response: We have provided a definition of work time which hopefully improves the clarity.

Reviewer 1: The results in Abstract are detailed, but there is no explanation of the time intervals. Maybe it should generalized in this part. Perhaps at the end of the abstract I would emphasize where the results can be applied.

Response: Thank you for the comment. Hopefully the explanation of work time helps clarify this. As much as we agree with you that it would be good to emphasise how the results can be applied, we are constrained by the abstract word count.

Reviewer 2: Please, improve in the discussion section the relationship between time analysis and fencing energetics. Can we propose different energetic mechanisms for each weapon? No more than a paragraph, please.

Response: We have added an additional paragraph starting line 273 on page 16 which hopefully expands on this.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter.docx

Click here for additional data file. (14.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Monika Błaszczyszyn

14 Apr 2023

Temporal Demands of Elite Fencing

PONE-D-23-04357R1

Dear Dr. Bottoms,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Monika Błaszczyszyn

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Monika Błaszczyszyn

22 May 2023

PONE-D-23-04357R1

Temporal Demands of Elite Fencing

Dear Dr. Bottoms:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Monika Błaszczyszyn

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (14.4KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper.

    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES