Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Oct 2;19(10):e0298703. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298703

Cycling reduces the entropy of neuronal activity in the human adult cortex

Iara Beatriz Silva Ferré 1, Gilberto Corso 2, Gustavo Zampier dos Santos Lima 3, Sergio Roberto Lopes 4, Mario André Leocadio-Miguel 5,*, Lucas G S França 6,7, Thiago de Lima Prado 4, John Fontenele Araújo 1
Editor: Noman Naseer8
PMCID: PMC11446439  PMID: 39356649

Abstract

Brain Complexity (BC) have successfully been applied to study the brain electroencephalographic signal (EEG) in health and disease. In this study, we employed recurrence entropy to quantify BC associated with the neurophysiology of movement by comparing BC in both resting state and cycling movement. We measured EEG in 24 healthy adults and placed the electrodes on occipital, parietal, temporal and frontal sites on both the right and left sides of the brain. We computed the recurrence entropy from EEG measurements during cycling and resting states. Entropy is higher in the resting state than in the cycling state for all brain regions analysed. This reduction in complexity is a result of the repetitive movements that occur during cycling. These movements lead to continuous sensorial feedback, resulting in reduced entropy and sensorimotor processing.

Introduction

Walking involves important cognitive processes governing neural networks incorporating sensory information, motor planning, execution and sensorial feedback [1]. Whilst an essential component of human life, this complexity is the reason our walking capacity is greatly sensitive to ageing [2] and can be severely compromised in neurological disorders [3]. Compared to walking, cycling comprises a cyclical and repetitive movement, consisting of the complete rotation of the pedal axis around the central axis of the bicycle. While the motor planning and execution of cycling might have similarities to the cortical control of walking, it is a less cognitively demanding movement. For instance, the need for trunk balance is significantly reduced when compared to walking [4]. This discrepancy motivated the investigation of the EEG signal between the resting state, cycling and walking. Storzer et al. [5] contrasted the EEG dynamics involved in cycling and walking in healthy volunteers. Both cycling and walking resulted in an increased recruitment of cortical activity compared to resting state. Nevertheless, cycling exhibited reduced recruitment for the execution of the movement and, therefore, corresponding to simpler dynamics, compared to walking.

Changes in cortical neuron recruitment have been previously analysed with brain complexity (BC) metrics derived from complex system science. Those studies provided insights into processes in healthy individuals and a number of conditions [6]. One such metric is entropy, which, when applied to gauge EEG signals, will provide a marker of the information encoded in those, i.e. changes in neuronal recruitment will modify electrical signals recorded by each electrode and that can be quantified with entropy. For example, a reduction in complexity is evident during slow wave sleep or when the eyes are closed during wakefulness [7, 8]. Entropy has also been proposed as a tool to distinguish the EEG of Parkinson’s disorder patients from controls [9] and to identify the transitions from walking to freezing in such patients [10].

This study investigated BC, gauged by entropy, and its association with the neurophysiological context during cycling in healthy volunteers. We contrasted the scalp electroencephalogram (EEG) of individuals while cycling and at rest. Here we hypothesise that cycling itself does reduce BC when compared to rest.

Materials and methods

Experimental setup

Sample

The sample consisted of 24 adult volunteers, 13 women (54%; mean age = 21.30; SE = 0.49) and 11 men (46%; mean age = 21.63; SE = 0.87). We performed an assessment of the subjects through an interview about the clinical conditions and measurements of blood pressure and heart rate before the experiment. Subjects who reported any cardio-respiratory or neurological disease or who had blood pressure values above 90 mmHg and 140 mmHg, for diastolic and systolic blood pressure respectively, were excluded from the sample. We also excluded individuals who showed artefacts in the recorded EEG. From the initial 24 individuals, 6 individuals were excluded. The excluded individuals showed erratic jumps in the electric signal, which are typical artefacts that result from poor skin-electrode contact.

Legal and ethical aspects

The present study was analysed by the Research Ethics Committee (CEP) of Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, and approved under CAAE 02979318.0.0000.5537. In order to participate in our project, the volunteers expressed their consent to participate in the research by signing the informed consent form (written consent) according to the Helsinki Declaration. The study recruited participants from 1 March to 14 June 2019.

Procedure and electroencephalographic evaluation

We used electroencephalography to acquire cortical electrical activity data, which records the electrical brain activity with electrodes fixed to the individual’s scalp. Participants started with a 2-minute baseline rest period sitting on the bicycle. Subsequently, they cycled continuously for 2 minutes. We acquired those with both open and closed eyes to assess the effect of alpha rhythms on BC [11]. For signal acquisition, Ag-AgCl electrodes were positioned on the scalp according to the 10-20 system. An electroencephalographic assembly was composed of eight electrodes in a bimodal assembly, the following pairs being F3-Fz, F4-Fz, C3-Cz, C4-Cz, P3-Pz, P4-Pz, O1-A2 and O2-A1. To facilitate the understanding, we named the electrodes as follows: F, C, P and O, in addition to the left and right sides. For the placement of the electrodes, the subjects only had to stop using hair creams on the day of the experiment to facilitate fixation of the EEG cap on the scalp and data collection. An abrasive paste for skin asepsis was used in the fixation sites of each electrode, and all electrodes were affixed with a conductive paste at each pre-established site of the scalp.

Data were collected at a sampling rate of 1000 Hz using a PowerLab 8/30 system (AdInstruments, Australia). ECG data were recorded on a PowerLab 26T system. Both systems were integrated, and the data wwere recorded using Labchart 7 Pro Software (AdInstruments, Australia). Data were captured with a band-pass filter from 1 to 100 Hz. For analysis, a band-stop filter of 59-61 Hz was applied to remove noise from the electrical network and, during cycling activity, a band-pass filter of 3 to 35 Hz was applied.

The bicycle model

There are three main types of stationary bikes: horizontal, upright and spinning. In this experiment we used a horizontal bicycle, which is generally used as a form of aerobic exercise for cardiac rehabilitation, weight loss, and as a form of stress testing. The horizontal bicycle reduces possible sensory interference and the risk of impacts for individuals who participate in the activity, such as the risk of falls. Moreover, the individuals cycling in the horizontal bike are more stable and as a consequence the skin electrodes have a better adhesion. In fact, the electrophysiology artefacts related to a weak skin electrode adhesion have a great impact on the quality of the measurements [12]. The bicycle model used in this project is the MAX-H by Dream Fitness (Brazil).

Data

From each individual, a total of 32 electrophysiologic recordings were obtained. These recordings correspond to eight electrode signals measured in four distinct behavioral states. The eight electrodes correspond to the places O, P, F and C for right and left sides. Moreover, each participant was registered at rest and cycling, with both open and closed eyes.

Entropy

Out of several complexity indices used to measure complexity of time series in previous research, e.g. entropy, Lyapunov exponent, or fractal dimension [13–16], entropy is a long-standing tool to explore complex phenomena [17] and can be defined according to the relation in Eq 1.

S=∑ipilogpi (1)

for pi a probability associated with the time series. In the original work of Shannon [18], the probability is associated with information carried by the time series. In neuroscience literature, the probability is usually related to the amplitude of the spectral representation of the signal [19]. We computed entropy using the recurrence method [20, 21]. This novel technique has been successfully employed to capture signal complexity by evaluating the periodicity of a time series and recurrence analysis has been widely employed in dynamical systems research and time series analyses [22], as it requires smaller data amounts to return reliable results [23, 24]. In our case, we split each electrophysiologic recording into 100 pieces to compute the recurrence indices.

Statistics

We evaluated the statistical significance of our results with general linear models (GLM), because they are flexible and can handle a variety of data types and distributions, which is typical of EEG.

First, we assessed the effect of open and closed eyes on cortical entropy according to GLM1: MedianEntropy ∼ Eyes(Open/Closed) + (1|Subject). This first analysis was performed as a validation step and compared with previous results reported elsewhere.

We then fitted a second general linear mixed effects model (GLMM) due to repeated measures considering the cycling effect according to GLMM2: MedianEntropy ∼ State(Cycling/Rest)*Eyes(Open/Closed) + (1|Subject).

The analyses were performed with R version 4.3.2 [25] and auxiliary packages [26, 27]. In both cases, the statistical significance of the variables of interest was evaluated with two-sided 10,000 repetitions permutation tests as they require fewer assumptions regarding the samples and their distributions [28]. We established α = 0.05 as the significance level.

Results

Reduced cortical entropy with eyes closed

To validate the recurrence entropy methodology, we compared the signal complexity in a region of the brain where we expect a strong signal response. The entropy of the electrode signal from the right side of the occipital region is shown in Fig 1. In this situation, all individuals are at rest, and we just compared eyes open and closed. The open eye shows larger entropy compared to closed eyes t(16) = −2.657; p = 0.015.

Fig 1. Variation of median entropy with closed eyes.

Fig 1

A reduced cortical entropy is associated with closed eyes; the variation is statistically significant as evaluated with the GLM1: MedianEntropy ∼ Eyes(Open/Closed) + (1|Subject) and a two-sided 10,000 repetitions permutation test.

Cycling is associated with reduced cortical entropy

We then analysed the effect of cycling in the EEG signal. The cycling state shows lower entropy when compared with the resting state for left and right central (t = −3.824; p = 0.001), left and right frontal (t = −3.617; p = 0.001 and t = −2.164; p = 0.042, respectively), left and right occipital (t = −3.337; p = 0.002 and t = −2.901; p = 0.006, respectively), and left and right parietal (t = −4.754; p < 0.001 and t = −2.497; p = 0.018, respectively) regions, shown in Fig 2A.

Fig 2. Variation of median entropy with cycling.

Fig 2

a) A reduced cortical entropy is associated with cycling. b) Measures for closed and open eyes session. A reduced cortical entropy is also associated with interaction between cycling and having one’s eyes closed. Reported values are statistically significant as evaluated with the GLMM2: MedianEntropy ∼ State(Cycling/Rest)*Eyes(Open/Closed) + (1|Subject) and a two-sided 10,000 repetitions permutation test.

Reduced cortical entropy whilst cycling with closed eyes

To evaluate the effect of cycling with closed eyes, we have also analysed the interaction term for our model for closed eyes and cycling. The cycling state with eyes closed shows lower entropy for right occipital (t = 2.090; p = 0.045) and left parietal (t = −2.994; p = 0.006) regions, shown in Fig 2B. A topographic plot with the entropy profile for the four different scenarios is shown in Fig 3.

Fig 3. Topographic plots for median entropy on F3-Fz, F4-Fz, C3-Cz, C4-Cz, P3-Pz, P4-Pz, O1-A2 and O2-A1 electrodes.

Fig 3

The profiles show a reduction in entropy figures for eyes closed and cycling states—with the lowest values registered for cycling with eyes closed.

Discussion

We applied recurrence entropy [20, 21] as a measure of complexity to assess changes in cortical electrophysiological activity associated with distinct brain functional states. The methodology for estimating signal complexity via entropy of recurrence was initially validated using the electrophysiological signal of the occipital region and comparing the signal entropy between open-eyes and closed-eyes. The result showed a reduction in entropy in the closed-eyes condition. It is known that the open-eyes condition allows retinal light detection which leads to neural activity in the occipital region responsible for processing visual information, that is represented by desynchronised neuronal activity. When we close our eyes and thus prevent light stimuli, an intrinsic neural activity of the thalamus-cortex circuit dominates the signal with a predominant frequency between 8 and 12 Hz, known as the alpha rhythm [11, 29, 30]. Our results suggest that the complexity measurement we propose is capable of distinguishing both: a synchronised pattern with lower entropy (closed eyes) and a desynchronised pattern with higher entropy (open eyes).

The aim of our study was to evaluate electrophysiological changes between rest and cycling conditions. Using the same recurrence entropy, we showed that the neural complexity is lower during the cycling behavior when compared to the resting state. This reduction in entropy was observed with greater predominance in the anterior areas of the brain, especially in the frontal area. We suggest that the observed entropy reduction is associated with an increase in cortical synchronization due to the increase of sensory feedback originating from the lower limbs as a result of flexion and extension repetitive movements that alternately occur during cycling. Our results are in line with those from Storzer et al. [5], who demonstrated a different pattern in the dynamics of neuronal oscillation in the cortex associated with walking and cycling behaviors compared to the resting state. Cycling behavior reduces the neuronal activity at high frequencies, in the beta band range (20 to 30 Hz) during the movement, followed by a rebound of this beta activity when exercise terminates [5]. In this way, decreased beta band power has been linked to an active neural state in the sensorimotor cortex that is associated with an increase in cortical excitability [31]. Furthermore, it has been shown that the beta power remains suppressed during continuous movements [32], but it is maintained in isometric and sustained movements [33, 34]. As the cycling is continuous, this movement may cause a stronger decrease in beta power, and it would explain the entropy reduction found in our study.

Spectral analysis is widely used by neuroscientists and indeed the identification of brain waves is built upon frequency bands [35]. Nevertheless, this technique has some important drawbacks, for example the dependence on noise that pollutes the frequency spectrum, often making it difficult to identify the dominant frequencies [36]. In addition, the EEG signal is non-linear and non-stationary with a high degree of complexity [37]. Therefore, the use of the Fourier transform is not entirely appropriate [7]. Furthermore, the spectral analysis is dependent on some arbitrary factors of choice: the size and shape of the window to analyse the signal and the type of base used. We point out that the basis of sines and cosines associated with the Fourier transform is the most common basis, but the Wavelet transforms open the way to many alternative bases [38]. In recent years, with the availability of mathematical tools based on complexity theories [15, 16], we have observed the use of entropy-based approaches as a strategy for nonlinear EEG analysis to provide independent and complementary measurements to conventional EEG spectral analysis, and with this, it has been possible to characterise these entropy measures with discrete changes in behavioral states [6, 39]. In this context, the recurrence entropy is a tool that directly uses the time series, without the need for preprocessing involving spectral analysis, to estimate the complexity of an electrophysiological signal.

In addition to exploring how cycling interferes with the complexity of brain electrophysiology in healthy individuals, our motivation for performing this study is based on recent research which demonstrated that cycling instantly decreases Parkinson’s disease (PD) motor signals while PD patients suffering from difficulties in walking and freezing of gait ride a bicycle [40]. The degeneration in the substantia nigra, the hallmark of PD, can lead to the inability to take a step associated with short steps that normally occur at the beginning of gait or when turning during walking, greatly impairing the mobility of patients, and resulting in the increased risk of falls and drastically reducing their quality of life [41]. As additional impacts, dynamic cycling increases sensory input to the motor control of movement in Parkinson’s disease patients, which may be related to improvements in motor speed and quality [42]. In future work, we intend to use this technique to assess brain complexity in different cycling conditions, such as cycling on horizontal and vertical stationary bicycles or cycling in a virtual reality environment. Furthermore, we aim to study the brain complexity of healthy, proficient and non-proficient cyclists and PD patients, using a stationary bicycle as a tool.

Conclusion

Our results clearly indicate that the entropy of neuronal activity in the human adult cortex decreases during cycling movements. This reduction in complexity is due to the repetitive movements that occur during cycling, which may cause continuous sensory feedback, resulting in less entropy and sensorimotor processing.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Mr Matthew Osbourn for supporting with the proofreading of this article.

Data Availability

Data acquired in the context of this study, the code used to generated the results, figures and statistics in this article are available in the Open Science Framework repository at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CW87P and at https://github.com/AlgosL/cycling-entropy.git. The script for entropy estimation is available at https://github.com/AlgosL/maxEntropy.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1. Montero-Odasso M, Verghese J, Beauchet O, Hausdorff JM. Gait and cognition: a complementary approach to understanding brain function and the risk of falling. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(11):2127–2136. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04209.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Gamwell HE, Wait SO, Royster JT, Ritch BL, Powell SC, Skinner JW. Aging and Gait Function: Examination of Multiple Factors that Influence Gait Variability. Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2022;8:23337214221080304. doi: 10.1177/23337214221080304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Mirelman A, Bonato P, Camicioli R, Ellis TD, Giladi N, Hamilton JL, et al. Gait impairments in Parkinson’s disease. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18(7):697–708. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30044-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Jain S, Gourab K, Schindler-Ivens S, Schmit BD. EEG during pedaling: evidence for cortical control of locomotor tasks. Clin Neurophysiol. 2013;124(2):379–390. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2012.08.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Storzer L, Butz M, Hirschmann J, Abbasi O, Gratkowski M, Saupe D, et al. Bicycling and Walking are Associated with Different Cortical Oscillatory Dynamics. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10:61–61. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Lau ZJ, Pham T, Chen SHA, Makowski D. Brain entropy, fractal dimensions and predictability: A review of complexity measures for EEG in healthy and neuropsychiatric populations. Eur J Neurosci. 2022;56(7):5047–5069. doi: 10.1111/ejn.15800 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Natarajan K, Acharya UR, Alias F, Tiboleng T, Puthusserypady SK. Nonlinear analysis of EEG signals at different mental states. Biomed Eng Online. 2004;3(1):7. doi: 10.1186/1475-925X-3-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Shen K, McFadden A, McIntosh AR. Signal complexity indicators of health status in clinical EEG. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):20192. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-99717-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Liu G, Zhang Y, Zhang Yanping, Hu Z, Du X, Wu W, et al. Complexity Analysis of Electroencephalogram Dynamics in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease. Parkinsons Dis. 2017;2017(2017):8701061–8701061. doi: 10.1155/2017/8701061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Handojoseno AMA, Shine JM, Nguyen Tuan N, Nguyen Tuan, Nguyen TV, Nguyen TN, et al. Analysis and Prediction of the Freezing of Gait Using EEG Brain Dynamics. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2015;23(5):887–896. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2014.2381254 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Karbowski K. Hans Berger (1873–1941). J Neurol. 2002;249(8):1130–1131. doi: 10.1007/s00415-002-0872-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Bailey SP, Hall EE, Folger SE, Miller PC. Changes in EEG During Graded Exercise on a Recumbent Cycle Ergometer. J Sports Sci Med. 2008;7(4):505–511. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Kantz H, Schreiber T. Nonlinear Time Series Analysis. Cambridge University Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Henriques T, Ribeiro M, Teixeira A, Castro L, Antunes L, Costa-Santos C. Nonlinear Methods Most Applied to Heart-Rate Time Series: A Review. Entropy (Basel, Switzerland). 2020;22(3):309. doi: 10.3390/e22030309 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. França LGS, Miranda JGV, Leite M, Sharma NK, Walker MC, Lemieux L, et al. Fractal and multifractal properties of electrographic recordings of human brain activity: toward its use as a signal feature for machine learning in clinical applications. Front Physiol. 2018;9:1767. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.01767 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. França LGS, Montoya P, Miranda JGV. On multifractals: A non-linear study of actigraphy data. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 2019;514:612–619. doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2018.09.122 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Balasis G, Donner RV, Potirakis SM, Runge J, Papadimitriou C, Daglis IA, et al. Statistical Mechanics and Information-Theoretic Perspectives on Complexity in the Earth System. Entropy. 2013;15(11):4844–4888. doi: 10.3390/e15114844 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Shannon CE. A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal. 1948;27(3):379–423. doi: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Cole SR, Voytek B. Brain Oscillations and the Importance of Waveform Shape. Trends Cogn Sci. 2017;21(2):137–149. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.12.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Corso G, Prado TdL, Lima GZDS, Kurths J, Lopes SR. Quantifying entropy using recurrence matrix microstates. Chaos (Woodbury, NY). 2018;28(8):083108. doi: 10.1063/1.5042026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Prado TdL, Dos Santos Lima GZ, Lobão-Soares B, do Nascimento GC, Corso G, Fontenele-Araujo J, et al. Optimizing the detection of nonstationary signals by using recurrence analysis. Chaos (Woodbury, NY). 2018;28(8):085703. doi: 10.1063/1.5022154 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Marwan N, Carmen Romano M, Thiel M, Kurths J. Recurrence plots for the analysis of complex systems. Phys Rep. 2007;438(5):237–329. doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2006.11.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Prado TL, Corso G, Dos Santos Lima GZ, Budzinski RC, Boaretto BRR, Ferrari FaS, et al. Maximum entropy principle in recurrence plot analysis on stochastic and chaotic systems. Chaos (Woodbury, NY). 2020;30(4):043123. doi: 10.1063/1.5125921 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Lopes SR, Prado TL, Corso G, dos S Lima GZ, Kurths J. Parameter-free quantification of stochastic and chaotic signals. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. 2020;133:109616. doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2020.109616 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; 2023. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/.
  • 26. Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan LD, François R, et al. Welcome to the tidyverse. J Open Source Softw. 2019;4(43):1686. doi: 10.21105/joss.01686 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Clarke E, Sherrill-Mix S, Dawson C. ggbeeswarm: Categorical Scatter (Violin Point) Plots; 2023. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggbeeswarm.
  • 28. Winkler AM, Ridgway GR, Webster MA, Smith SM, Nichols TE. Permutation inference for the general linear model. NeuroImage. 2014;92:381–397. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.01.060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Fernandez L, Rogasch NC, Do M, Clark G, Major BP, Teo WP, et al. Cerebral Cortical Activity Following Non-invasive Cerebellar Stimulation-a Systematic Review of Combined TMS and EEG Studies. Cerebellum (London, England). 2020;19(2):309–335. doi: 10.1007/s12311-019-01093-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Dos Santos Lima GZ, Lobao-Soares B, Corso G, Belchior H, Lopes SR, de Lima Prado T, et al. Hippocampal and cortical communication around micro-arousals in slow-wave sleep. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):5876. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-42100-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Seeber M, Scherer R, Wagner J, Solis-Escalante T, Müller-Putz GR. EEG beta suppression and low gamma modulation are different elements of human upright walking. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8:485. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00485 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Erbil N, Ungan P. Changes in the alpha and beta amplitudes of the central EEG during the onset, continuation, and offset of long-duration repetitive hand movements. Brain Res. 2007;1169:44–56. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.07.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Cassim F, Szurhaj W, Sediri H, Devos D, Bourriez JL, Poirot I, et al. Brief and sustained movements: differences in event-related (de)synchronization (ERD/ERS) patterns. Clin Neurophysiol. 2000;111(11):2032–2039. doi: 10.1016/S1388-2457(00)00455-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Gwin JT, Ferris DP. An EEG-based study of discrete isometric and isotonic human lower limb muscle contractions. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2012;9:35. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-9-35 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Groppe DM, Bickel S, Keller CJ, Jain SK, Hwang ST, Harden C, et al. Dominant frequencies of resting human brain activity as measured by the electrocorticogram. NeuroImage. 2013;79:223–233. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Goldberger AL, Amaral LA, Glass L, Hausdorff JM, Ivanov PC, Mark RG, et al. PhysioBank, PhysioToolkit, and PhysioNet: components of a new research resource for complex physiologic signals. Circulation. 2000;101(23):E215–20. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.101.23.e215 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Lima GZdS, Lobão-Soares B, Nascimento GCd, França ASC, Muratori L, Ribeiro S, et al. Mouse Activity across Time Scales: Fractal Scenarios. PLOS ONE. 2014;9(10):e105092. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105092 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Kumar N, Alam K, Siddiqi AH. Wavelet Transform for Classification of EEG Signal using SVM and ANN. Biomedical and Pharmacology Journal. 2017;10(4):2061–2069. doi: 10.13005/bpj/1328 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Ma Y, Shi W, Peng CK, Yang AC. Nonlinear dynamical analysis of sleep electroencephalography using fractal and entropy approaches. Sleep Med Rev. 2018;37:85–93. doi: 10.1016/j.smrv.2017.01.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Snijders AH, Toni I, Ružička E, Bloem BR. Bicycling breaks the ice for freezers of gait. Mov Disord. 2011;26(3):367–371. doi: 10.1002/mds.23530 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Nutt JG, Bloem BR, Giladi N, Hallett M, Horak FB, Nieuwboer A. Freezing of gait: moving forward on a mysterious clinical phenomenon. Lancet Neurol. 2011;10(8):734–744. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(11)70143-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Ridgel AL, Robert S Phillips, Phillips RS, Walter BL, Discenzo FM, Loparo KA. Dynamic High-Cadence Cycling Improves Motor Symptoms in Parkinson’s Disease. Front Neurol. 2015;6:194–194. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2015.00194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Noman Naseer

5 Mar 2024

PONE-D-24-02271Cycling reduces the entropy of neuronal activity in the human adult cortexPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Leocadio-Miguel,

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.

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

The paper is interesting, however, major revisions are required. Please revise thoroughly upon reviewers' comments and submit the revised version. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 19 2024 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,

Noman Naseer, PhD

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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file).

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The authors thank the Brazilian Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for its continued support. Grants Nos. 309440/2022-0, 308441/2021-4, 305189/2022-0, grant 307907/2019-8.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please upload a copy of Supporting Information Figure 1 which you refer to in your text on page 4.

Additional Editor Comments:

The paper is interesting, however, major revisions are required. Please revise thoroughly upon reviewers' comments and submit the revised version.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

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: No

**********

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 topic is interesting and should be beneficial for further research. The conclusion is not in cohesion with the other part of the manuscript and should be rewritten in the form of answering the main research question.

Reviewer #2: Review for “Cycling reduces the entropy of neuronal activity in the human adult cortex”

I would like to appreciate the unique idea behind this paper. There are certain amendments which I would want the authors to consider while revisiting this manuscript:

1. The abstract attempts to covers all the aspects of the topic, which is good. However, I do think that the first sentence which introduces EEG and the second sentence which instantly starts talking about the present study and recurrence entropy, without really making the connection.

2. When talking about Regions of Interest, the authors need to mention brain when saying ‘right and left sides’.

3. There is no connection created between entropy and cycling and the logic of connecting cycling with EEG or the very idea of doing this research. Why do we want to know about entropy? How is it beneficial?

4. The introduction is not impressive, as the authors directly begin with something that does not directly correlate academically with the title. The starting statement says “Richard Caton once said that the brain speaks for itself”, which is not impressive for a research paper.

5. Starting with the history of EEG is not a good idea, in the introduction. I would recommend to start with your main topic and why is it needed.

6. The comparison of walking with cycling holds interesting dynamics, however, it seems slightly inconclusive at the end on page 8.

7. From cycling, there is a sudden jump to gait without really defining and linking it with cycling.

8. The introduction section misses numerous links between ideas. How entropy impacts human beings, why would brain behave differently, why do we need to assess it, where can it be beneficial, why are we exploring it in cycling, why is there a need to do this?

9. Details of Sample is needed. What was the criteria for selecting these 13 women and 11 men?

10. The authors used the horizontal bicycle for the experiment. There is a need for citation here to justify the use of this bicycle in particular.

11. There is a need for a visual in the Methodology section which could exemplify the experimental paradigm and trials.

12. The logic, citation and justification for using eyes close and open is missing in the methodology section.

13. In the discussion section, the authors suddenly move from cycling to walking and its neuronal dynamics, which seems haphazard and requires to be connected well.

14. In the conclusion section, the topic has been linked with Parkinson’s disease at least 4 to 5 times. However, the sample taken for this study did not include this disease and its concerning manifestations. This makes the conclusion confusing for the reader to navigate. The authors need to revise this section with particular attention.

15. The statistical analysis requires more justification and details. Presently, it is very surficial and does not cover many reasons of how and why it was performed.

16. Many of the references are not according to the format. They need to be rechecked.

**********

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: No

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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review_PLOS_CyclingEntropy.docx

pone.0298703.s001.docx (13.7KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2024 Oct 2;19(10):e0298703. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298703.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


14 Jun 2024

Rebuttal Letter - Cycling reduces the entropy of neuronal activity in the human adult cortex – Ferre et al, PLOSOne

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their fair reviews and detailed list of constructive suggestions. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to submit a major revision of our paper for your renewed consideration. Below, we respond to reviewers’ comments and point to the corresponding changes we made in the paper. The line numbers below refer to the line numbers in the clean revised manuscript. We have included an extra file containing all the track changes.

Reviewer #1:

Comment: The topic is interesting and should be beneficial for further research. The conclusion is not in cohesion with the other part of the manuscript and should be rewritten in the form of answering the main research question.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for the comments and feedback, which allowed us to improve the quality of our manuscript. We emphasised reorganising the manuscript to answer the main research question clearly.

Action: We reworked the Conclusion section to address the issue highlighted by the reviewer. Accordingly, our new conclusion section is as follows (lines 213-217):

“Our results clearly indicate that the entropy of neuronal activity in the human adult cortex decreases during cycling movements. This reduction in complexity is due to the repetitive movements that occur during cycling, which may cause continuous sensory feedback, resulting in less entropy and sensorimotor processing.”

Reviewer #2:

Review for “Cycling reduces the entropy of neuronal activity in the human adult cortex”

Comment: I would like to appreciate the unique idea behind this paper. There are certain amendments which I would want the authors to consider while revisiting this manuscript:

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for the feedback. We tried our best to address every single concern raised by the reviewer.

Comment: 1. The abstract attempts to covers all the aspects of the topic, which is good. However, I do think that the first sentence which introduces EEG and the second sentence which instantly starts talking about the present study and recurrence entropy, without really making the connection.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for the feedback.

Action: We reworked the abstract section to address the issue highlighted by the reviewer. Accordingly, our new abstract section is as follows:

“Brain Complexity (BC) have successfully been applied to study the brain electroencephalographic signal (EEG) in health and disease. In this study, we employed recurrence entropy to quantify BC associated with the neurophysiology of movement by comparing BC in both resting state and cycling movement. We measured EEG in 24 healthy adults and placed the electrodes on occipital, parietal, temporal and frontal sites on both the right and left sides of the brain. We computed the recurrence entropy from EEG measurements during cycling and resting states. Entropy is higher in the resting state than in the cycling state for all brain regions analysed. This reduction in complexity is a result of the repetitive movements that occur during cycling. These movements lead to continuous sensorial feedback, resulting in reduced entropy and sensorimotor processing.”

Comment: 2. When talking about Regions of Interest, the authors need to mention brain when saying ‘right and left sides’.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this detail.

Action: We have adjusted the sentence in the abstract section to clarify it.

Comment: 3. There is no connection created between entropy and cycling and the logic of connecting cycling with EEG or the very idea of doing this research. Why do we want to know about entropy? How is it beneficial?

Response: Thank you for bringing this detail to our attention.

Action: By reorganising the abstract section, we stated the benefits of using brain complexity measures to process EEG data in health and disease. We also emphasised the connection between reduced entropy and sensorimotor processing.

Comment: 4. The introduction is not impressive, as the authors directly begin with something that does not directly correlate academically with the title. The starting statement says “Richard Caton once said that the brain speaks for itself”, which is not impressive for a research paper.

Response: Thank you for the comment. Our idea was to provide the reader with a historical background, highlighting the gap between the development of the first EEG devices and the more recent and currently underdeveloped assessment of brain activity during movement.

Action: However, to make our introduction section more focused, we decided to exclude the entire first paragraph.

Comment: 5. Starting with the history of EEG is not a good idea, in the introduction. I would recommend to start with your main topic and why is it needed.

Response: Thank you for the comment.

Action: As described in the response to the previous comment, we reorganised the introduction section. Therefore, the new first paragraph is as follows (lines 2-16):

“Walking involves important cognitive processes governing neural networks incorporating sensory information, motor planning, execution and sensorial feedback [1]. Whilst an essential component of human life, this complexity is the reason our walking capacity is greatly sensitive to ageing [2] and can be severely compromised in neurological disorders [3]. Compared to walking, cycling comprises a cyclical and repetitive movement, consisting of the complete rotation of the pedal axis around the central axis of the bicycle. While the motor planning and execution of cycling might have similarities to the cortical control of walking, it is a less cognitively demanding movement. For instance, the need for trunk balance is significantly reduced when compared to walking [4]. This discrepancy motivated the investigation of the EEG signal between the resting state, cycling and walking. Storzer et al. [5] contrasted the EEG dynamics involved in cycling and walking in healthy volunteers. Both cycling and walking resulted in an increased recruitment of cortical activity compared to resting state. Nevertheless, cycling exhibited reduced recruitment for the execution of the movement and, therefore, corresponding to simpler dynamics, compared to walking.”

Comment: 6. The comparison of walking with cycling holds interesting dynamics, however, it seems slightly inconclusive at the end on page 8.

Response: We appreciate the comment and addressed the issue in the introduction section.

Action: We paid extra care to address this comparison in the last two sentences of the first paragraph (lines 13-16).

Comment: 7. From cycling, there is a sudden jump to gait without really defining and linking it with cycling.

Response: Thank you for the relevant comment.

Action: The new structure of the introduction section is straightforward. It privileges the differences in the dynamics of cycling and walking in the first part and presents entropy to assess brain complexity in the second half. This reorganisation was meant to be more coherent and to deal with the sudden jumps between concepts.

Comment: 8. The introduction section misses numerous links between ideas. How entropy impacts human beings, why would brain behave differently, why do we need to assess it, where can it be beneficial, why are we exploring it in cycling, why is there a need to do this?

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for the thoughtful comment, which was essential as a guide for the new structure of the introduction section.

Action: We reorganised the second paragraph to provide readers with the links and rationale behind adopting entropy to study EEG dynamics. Therefore, the new second paragraph is as follows (lines 17-26):

“Changes in cortical neuron recruitment have been previously analysed with brain complexity (BC) metrics derived from complex system science. Those studies provided insights into processes in healthy individuals and a number of conditions [6]. One such metric is entropy, which, when applied to gauge EEG signals, will provide a marker of the information encoded in those, i.e. changes in neuronal recruitment will modify electrical signals recorded by each electrode and that can be quantified with entropy. For example, a reduction in complexity is evident during slow wave sleep or when the eyes are closed during wakefulness [7,8]. Entropy has also been proposed as a tool to distinguish the EEG of Parkinson’s disorder patients from controls [9] and to identify the transitions from walking to freezing in such patients [10].”

Comment: 9. Details of Sample is needed. What was the criteria for selecting these 13 women and 11 men?

Response: Thank you for the comment. We recruited our volunteers amongst healthy undergraduate students via leaflets and word-of-mouth within the academic community. These individuals volunteered to participate in the study and received no incentives. We aimed at a sample size compatible with that of Storzer et al., who recruited 15 healthy volunteers and maintained 14 after exclusion criteria. Our final sample count was reached after applying the exclusion criteria described in the methodology.

Action: We have clarified the exclusion criteria in the methodology section to explain better how we reached the final sample. The new first paragraph of the materials and methods section is as follows (lines 34-43):

“The sample consisted of 24 adult volunteers, 13 women (54%; mean age = 21.30; SE = 0.49) and 11 men (46%; mean age = 21.63; SE = 0.87). We performed an assessment of the subjects through an interview about the clinical conditions and measurements of blood pressure and heart rate before the experiment. Subjects who reported any cardio-respiratory or neurological disease or who had blood pressure values above 90 mmHg and 140 mmHg, for diastolic and systolic blood pressure respectively, were excluded from the sample. We also excluded individuals who showed artefacts in the recorded EEG. From the initial 24 individuals, 6 individuals were excluded. The excluded individuals showed erratic jumps in the electric signal, which are typical artefacts that result from poor skin-electrode contact.”

Comment: 10. The authors used the horizontal bicycle for the experiment. There is a need for citation here to justify the use of this bicycle in particular.

Response: The rationale behind the adoption of this bicycle is based on the fact that the recumbent or horizontal posture has the potential to minimise the impact of mechanical artefacts on the EEG signal, as described by Bailey, S. P., Hall, E. E., Folger, S. E., & Miller, P. C. (2008), reference number 12.

Action: We included the following reference in the respective manuscript section (line 82): Bailey, S. P., Hall, E. E., Folger, S. E., & Miller, P. C. (2008). Changes in EEG During Graded Exercise on a Recumbent Cycle Ergometer. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 7(4), 505–511.

Comment: 11. There is a need for a visual in the Methodology section which could exemplify the experimental paradigm and trials.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have adjusted the respective section in the manuscript to clarify the experimental procedure.

Action: The new version of the respective paragraph follows (lines 52-56): “We used electroencephalography to acquire cortical electrical activity data, which records the electrical brain activity with electrodes fixed to the individual’s scalp. Participants started with a 2-minute baseline rest period sitting on the bicycle. Subsequently, they cycled continuously for 2 minutes. We acquired those with both open and closed eyes to assess the effect of alpha rhythms on BC [11].”

Comment: 12. The logic, citation and justification for using eyes close and open is missing in the methodology section.

Response: We thank the reviewer. We acknowledge the missing citation and have provided it in the revised version of the manuscript.

Action: We have included further explanation in the methodology to make it clearer for the reader (lines 55 - 56). “We acquired those with both open and closed eyes to assess the effect of alpha rhythms on BC”

This is also further explained in the discussion section (lines 148 – 156): “The methodology for estimating signal complexity via entropy of recurrence was initially validated using the electrophysiological signal of the occipital region and comparing the signal entropy between open-eyes and closed-eyes. The result showed a reduction in entropy in the closed-eyes condition. We know that the open-eyes condition allows retinal light detection which leads to neural activity in the occipital region responsible for processing visual information, that is represented by desynchronised neuronal activity. When we close our eyes and thus prevent light stimuli, an intrinsic neural activity of the thalamus-cortex circuit dominates the signal with a predominant frequency between 8 and 12 Hz, known as the alpha rhythm [11, 29, 30].”

Comment: 13. In the discussion section, the authors suddenly move from cycling to walking and its neuronal dynamics, which seems haphazard and requires to be connected well.

Response: We want to thank the reviewer for the insightful suggestion. Based on this feedback, we reorganised the discussion section, reducing the sudden changes and coherence issues and narrowing the focus towards a more results-oriented narrative.

Action: We have excluded the sentences regarding comparing walking and cycling.

Comment: 14. In the conclusion section, the topic has been linked with Parkinson’s disease at least 4 to 5 times. However, the sample taken for this study did not include this disease and its concerning manifestations. This makes the conclusion confusing for the reader to navigate. The authors need to revise this section with particular attention.

Response: Once again, thank you for the perfect comment. In fact, the original conclusion was not appropriate.

Action: We have changed the conclusions section entirely. The reorganised version is straightforward and focused on our findings (lines 213-217).

Comment: 15. The statistical analysis requires more justification and details. Presently, it is very surficial and does not cover many reasons of how and why it was performed.

Response: Thank you. We acknowledge that further details were necessary. Therefore, we changed the manuscript accordingly.

Action: Specifically, we included details on the suitability of general linear models to handle data extracted from EEG recordings. We also improved the description of the second GLM model and included the significance level of the statistical procedures. Finally, we described and included a citation referring to the rationale for the permutation test (lines 104-118).

Comment: 16. Many of the references are not according to the format. They need to be rechecked.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for this comment.

Action: As a result, we have double-checked the reference list to guarantee the references comply with the format.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript. Your comments and suggestions were fundamental to improving the quality of our study's report.

Kindest regards,

Mario Leocadio-Miguel

Corresponding author

Attachment

Submitted filename: rebuttal_letter.docx

pone.0298703.s002.docx (32.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Noman Naseer

18 Jul 2024

Cycling reduces the entropy of neuronal activity in the human adult cortex

PONE-D-24-02271R1

Dear Dr. Leocadio-Miguel,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Noman Naseer, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The reviewers' concerns have been adequetly addressed.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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 #2: Yes

**********

5. 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 #2: Yes

**********

6. 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 #2: I have checked the amendments made in the draft the by the authors. These revisions satisfy my comments and I think the manuscript is fine now.

**********

7. 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 #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Noman Naseer

6 Sep 2024

PONE-D-24-02271R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Leocadio-Miguel,

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

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Noman Naseer

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: Review_PLOS_CyclingEntropy.docx

    pone.0298703.s001.docx (13.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: rebuttal_letter.docx

    pone.0298703.s002.docx (32.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data acquired in the context of this study, the code used to generated the results, figures and statistics in this article are available in the Open Science Framework repository at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CW87P and at https://github.com/AlgosL/cycling-entropy.git. The script for entropy estimation is available at https://github.com/AlgosL/maxEntropy.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES