Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Apr 7;16(4):e0249635. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249635

Anticipatory and pre-planned actions: A comparison between young soccer players and swimmers

Francesca Nardello 1, Matteo Bertucco 1, Paola Cesari 1,*
Editor: Cosimo Urgesi2
PMCID: PMC8026046  PMID: 33826672

Abstract

The present study investigated whether a difference exists in reactive and proactive control for sport considered open or closed skills dominated. Sixteen young (11–12 years) athletes (eight soccer players and eight swimmers) were asked to be engaged into two games competitions that required either a reactive and a proactive type of control. By means of kinematic (i.e. movement time and duration) and dynamic analysis through the force platform (i.e. Anticipatory Postural Adjustments, APAs), we evaluated the level of ability and stability in reacting and anticipating actions. Results indicated that soccer players outperformed swimmers by showing higher stability and a smaller number of falls during the competition where proactive control was mainly required. Soccer players were able to reach that result by anticipating actions through well-modulated APAs. On the contrary, during the competition where reactive control was mainly required, performances were comparable between groups. Therefore, the development of specific action control is already established at 11–12 years of age and is enhanced by the training specificity.

Introduction

Sports are traditionally classified in two general categories based on the relationship between the movements and the environmental changes allowed by the task at hand [1]. The categories are recognized as open and closed skills: open skills are those that take place in an unpredictable and constantly changing environment where movements need to be continually adapted (i.e. basketball, soccer, volleyball, handball); vice versa closed-skills are performed in an unchanged environment with movements that follow a relatively stable set of patterns as track and field or swimming [24]. Consider for instance the game of basketball where the ball and the players are constantly moving. In this case, it is fundamental to develop specific abilities as to adapt dynamically to the changes of the game contexts or to anticipate the actions performed by others and predict the trajectories of the ball [4, 5]. This is not the case for a swimmer; he/she is not asked to react to the other swimmers’ actions nor to anticipate unknown outcomes, but instead to maintain core stability while performing in the most efficient way repeated patterns of action [6]. It turns out that the ability to deal with the relationship between environmental contexts and movement responses for an open skilled athlete could be different than the one obtained by a closed skilled type of athlete [7]. Nevertheless, elite athletes whatever the sport practiced, develop common sensory-motor capabilities.

Sports are performed under conditions of stress due to the physical, psychological and environmental demands, for satisfying expectations and resisting to pressure while performing high level executions [8]. Such conditions exacerbate the athlete’s ability to quickly and accurately pick up relevant information for the task at hand; this learning process would reduce the time of making a decision and allow more accurate action preparation [9, 10]. In addition, either in closed or open dominated-sport skills, fast reaction time (RT) underlines the presence of critical abilities considered advantageous to the player’s successful performance [11]. In fact, in many sports, maximum speed is rarely reached or needed, while instead explosive reaction is often required [12]. Reacting faster to a stimulus has been considered a basic measure to assess many different sensory motor capacities, from simple daily life tasks [13], to high competitions as in karate [14] and athletic dash sprint [15].

Following behavioural results [16], researches asked what control will be necessary for developing open or closed type of motor skill by searching for differences between “proactive” and “reactive” control of movement through the disclosure of possible related neuronal underpinning [17]. Proactive control is mainly defined by a process that allows an early selection of the response helped by an appropriate attention and cue selection along with a goal-driven action [18]. This action control mechanism is applied as an essential knowledge for understanding the future of an action for being able to anticipate the action. Overall, this type of control is more present in an open environment [4]. On the contrary, reactive control requires to respond imperatively after the stimulus appear [18]. In this case a fast and appropriate reaction of external changes represents the typical control present in a closed environment [19]. The two controls require different neurophysiological processes: the proactive being more driven by a feedforward control while the reactive more by a feedback control [20].

One way to investigate the link between action planning (feedforward control) and execution (feedback control) is to measure the muscles activity before movement initiation, since voluntary actions are always preceded by postural changes [21, 22]. These changes occur prior to the movement itself and can be conceived of as Anticipatory Postural Adjustments (APAs). APAs are centrally programmed and their putative role is to minimize perturbations to vertical posture that would otherwise be induced by a movement (for a review see [23]). Starting from early pioneering research, APAs have been studied during lower limb movement [24], trunk movement and arm movement [25]. In literature, APAs are usually studied with through EMG analysis (i.e. early postural adjustments, EPA) [22, 25] and/or with force platform [24, 2628]. APAs are typically quantified in terms of their magnitude or the onset timing of the signal (i.e. EMG or GRFs) before the initiation of the movement [26, 27]. When measured with the ground reaction force [2931], APAs onset, amplitude and impulse are usually analysed from the ground reaction forces (GRFs) [24, 2627] or centre of pressure [28].

To our knowledge, this is the first study that measures anticipatory mechanisms during game competition for comparing young but highly expert athletes that developed abilities in a more dynamic or in a more stable environment. Past literature has investigated the superiority of the skilled athletes over less skilled athletes [16, 32], but only a limited number of studies have directly compared anticipatory skills performed by athletes from closed skill-dominated and open skill-dominated sports [32, 33] and mostly considering adult athletes. Critically, these studies considered as a test mainly tasks to be performed on a computer table game situation as for instance the “task-switching paradigm” [17, 34]. Therefore, given the scarce literature about the development of proactive and reactive control mechanisms and the absence of test that considers more ecologically how a real body game situation let merges reactive and proactive skills, we want to analyse the behaviour of APAs by comparing the anticipatory skills of soccer players (open skill-dominated sport) and swimmers (closed skill-dominated sport). This will reveal how the CNS control action anticipation in young athletes when engaged in a total body game competition requiring proactive and reactive control. The importance to test expert children is to better understand the development of the appearance of these anticipatory mechanisms indicating the influence that a sport training has in enhancing specific motor skills.

The main aim of this study is to shade light on the role of skills development (open and closed) by comparing APAs, by means of the ground reaction forces, in children highly experienced in open and closed disciplines respectively soccer and swim.

In a proactive game, we would expect a greater postural stability accomplished with a lower risk of falling for the open-skills players in comparison to the closed-skills ones. This augmented ability would be reflected by an early modulation of the Anticipatory Postural Adjustments. In a reactive game, instead, we assume no differences between open and closed skills.

Material and methods

Participants

Sixteen young male athletes were recruited for the experiment: eight were soccer players and eight swimmers. They were recruited from the A.C. Chievo Verona soccer club and from the CSS “Montebianco” swimming pool club in Verona, respectively. Their anthropometric characteristics and years of experience are reported in Table 1.

Table 1. Soccer players and swimmers group body characteristics (mean (SD)).

Variable Soccer players Swimmers
(n = 8) (n = 8)
Age (years) 11.8 (0.3) 11.6 (0.6)
Body Height (m) 1.54 (0.06) 1.54 (0.09)
Body Mass (kg) 44.7 (6.11) 43.7 (6.70)
Years of experience 3.8 (0.3) 3.6 (0.5)
Training hours for week 6.00 6.00

All participants were free from any musculoskeletal disorder and neurologic disease that could affect the study. The project was approved by the Ethical Committee at the Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences at University of Verona (Prot. 269664/2017) and all participants provided written informed consent before taking part in the experimental procedures.

Apparatus

Video clips were recorded by means of a digital camera (Panasonic, Lumix DMC FZ200, made in China, 100Hz, 12.1Megapixel, optical zoom 24x). The camera was located perpendicular to the sagittal plane of the game zone, on the left side of the players.

Two force platforms (model OR-5, AMTI, USA: 90 × 90 cm and model Kistler, Switzerland: 40 × 60 cm) were used to record the three components of the ground reaction forces with a sampling rate of 2000 Hz. Only the anterior-posterior component (GRFx) has been used for further analysis.

A couple of pads was attached on both palms for each subject with the Velcro®. The aluminium-made pads were covered with three layers of felt and externally with leather to soften the impact. One tri-axial accelerometer (model LSM6DS33TR, Farnell, ITALY, sampling rate 2000 Hz) was attached internally to the pad which was tied to the player’s dominant arm. The signals were used to quantify the movement time up to the impact.

Experimental procedure

Proactive type of game

In order to test action anticipation ability, subjects were asked to participate to the “push and fall” game. The game is played by a couple of individuals (player 1 versus player 2); each couple was formed by a soccer player (e.g. player 1) and a swimmer (e.g. player 2). The two players were standing barefoot on a force plate each, facing each other (Fig 1, panel a). As initial position they were asked to stand with feet together, to flex their upper arm by facing their palms to the opponent. The distance between the two players corresponded to the length of their arms as to be able to touch the shoulder of the opponent with their arm extended forward.

Fig 1. The experimental set-up.

Fig 1

a. The proactive type of game (left diagram: the impact was associated with a perfect stability; right diagram: the impact was associated with a loss of stability). b. The reactive type of game.

The main rule of the game was to push with palm contact the opponent palms to threw him off balance. The trial could be initiated after an external vocal command “push” was delivered. After the push command players were free to decide when to initiate the action. No constraints for time initiation of the movement was given. Each player was allowed to move just in one shot (i.e. a single push). In other words, fake actions were not allowed. More in specific extra movements for simulating fake actions were not allowed but players could choose not to move at all so that in some trials impact between the two players’ palms was not present. The contact between the two players was allowed only by touching the palms; no other parts of the body could come into contact. The players were not asked to react as soon as possible to the push signal but instead to self-select their own time of action initiation. The main aim of the game was inducing players to guess the opponent’s action for anticipating and actuating the best movement’s strategy (Fig 1A, right diagram). At the end of each trial the players were asked to regain the initial position, ready to initiate the next trial. For each trial the experimenter checked the posture taken by players to make sure that the rules were followed.

A total of 10 blocks with 12 trials each were performed for each couple of players; there was an interval between blocks of 3 minutes to avoid fatigue. A total of 960 trails were performed; from this total we selected, from each couple, the number of trials where the impact was present, obtaining a total of 560 trials considering all the couples together. To assure the maximum game farness the selection of players forming each couple was made based on the similarity in the anthropometrics measures in terms of body height and weight.

Reactive type of game

In order to test the reactive skills, a FITLIGHT Trainer (FILIGHT Sports Corp., Ontario, Canada) was used. This is a wireless system consisting of light sensors. The lights were attached to the wall forming two semicircles made each of 4 light sensors. The two semicircles were identical and positioned at 1meter distance from each other, within each semicircle each light was distant from each other by 20 cm. Each player was standing in front of one of the two semicircles that was positioned at the level of the player’s shoulder high (Fig 1, panel b). Each player stood in front of the 4 lights at a comfortable distance. The rule of the game was: as soon as a light appeared on, shut it down as fast as possible by touching it, then one other light will appear on and again as fast as possible shut it down by touching it and so on. The time of each trial was made of 30 seconds, and four trials were administered for each couple of players. As performance measures we considered the time between lights shut down and the total number of lights shut down. Players were allowed to use both hands, the sequences of the lights on positions were random; players were performing individually but simultaneously and were placed at 1 metre distance from each other.

Prior to data collection, a period of familiarization was given to the players for both games (proactive and reactive). The whole experimental session lasted for about 60 min.

Data analysis

For the proactive game video-clips were taken. All video clips were scrutinized to identify the presence of falls by indicating for each player the “stability index” considering as value 1 the perfect stability and value 0 loss of stability (e.g. loss of stability was considered when one of the two feet or both were detached from the force platform as illustrated in Fig 1A, right diagram). The percentage of falls for each player was also measured. Each video was analyzed twice by the same operator in order to confirm data reliability.

Acceleration data were processed offline using the MATLAB software (MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA), and the signal from the three coordinates of the accelerometer was integrated. The acceleration data were digitally low-pass filtered at 20 Hz using a fifth order, zero-lag Butterworth filter. Firstly, the instant at which the subject initiated the movement (T0) was calculated when the magnitude of this integrated acceleration exceeded 3% of its peak absolute magnitude in that particular trial. These values were confirmed by visual inspection. Secondly, the instant of impact (T1) was appreciated by considering the mean value of the time of peak acceleration between the soccer player and the swimmer (see Fig 2 which shows a representative trial of the anterior-posterior GRF for a player). Movement time was calculated as the time from T0 to T1. The difference between the T0 of the soccer player and the T0 of the swimmer was considered as time lag that defines the player that initiated the action as first.

Fig 2. A representative trial of the anterior-posterior GRF for a player.

Fig 2

T0 is the instant at which the subject initiated the movement; T1 is the instant of impact; absolute APAs impulse has been calculated as the integrated signal of the anterior-posterior GRF over a fixed window time (from -200 ms to T0).

Also, the force data were digitally low-pass filtered at 20 Hz using a fifth order, zero-lag Butterworth filter. Anticipatory Postural Adjustments (APAs) were calculated as the absolute impulse generated by the anterior-posterior GRF over a window time from -200 ms to T0. It is worth noting that, we only considered the anterior-posterior component of force because the movement took place mainly in such direction during the game. The fixed time of 200 ms was chosen based on previous APAs studies during fast voluntary movements [29, 35], as well as a priori visual inspection of the GRFs during the data analysis.

For the reactive game the number of lights off and the timing between each light off (reaction time expressed in seconds) were measured with the FITLIGHT Trainer.

Statistical analysis

Results are presented as mean and standard deviation (SD). A Student t-test for paired data was performed to investigate group differences in anthropometrical and general characteristics (p < 0.05).

The normality of the distributions was assessed with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov goodness of fit test. For each variable (movement time, time lag, APAs impulse, and stability index), we performed a Mann-Whitney U-test for independent samples to investigate differences between soccer players and swimmers (n = 8; p < 0.05). Also, simple linear regression analysis was computed to investigate the correlations among all variables; the reliability (significance) of these relationships was established based on the coefficient of correlation (r) and the appropriate degrees of freedom (n-2) (e.g. [36]). The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS program (version 22 for Windows).

Results

There were no significant differences between the two groups in mean age, height, weight and years of experience (see Table 1) (Student t-test for paired data; p > 0.05).

Average and standard deviation values measured in both proactive and reactive game are reported in Table 2 for soccer players and swimmers (Mann-Whitney U-test for independent samples; p < 0.05).

Table 2. Data studied for the proactive type of game and the reactive type of game (mean (SD)), and statistical significance between soccer players and swimmers.

Characteristic Soccer players 95% CI Swimmers 95% CI Effect size p value
(n = 8) (n = 8) (r)
Proactive type of game
Movement Time (s) 0.27 (0.04) 0.24–0.31 0.30 (0.06) 0.24–0.35 -0.211 p = 0.399
Time Lag (s) 0.11 (0.03) 0.08–0.14 0.12 (0.02) 0.09–0.14 -0.160 p = 0.522
Trials with time lag (%) 32.6 (14.6) 18.0–47.2 37.4 (13.3) 24.1–50.1 -0.158 p = 0.527
APAs Impulse (N·s) 2.34 (1.39) 0.96–3.70 2.16 (1.01) 1.15–3.20 -0.053 p = 0.834
Stability Index 0.87 (0.09) 0.77–0.96 0.66 (0.11) 0.55–0.77 -0.709 p < 0.01
Reactive type of game
Reaction Time (s) 0.45 (0.05) 0.41–0.50 0.48 (0.07) 0.41–0.55 -0.263 p = 0.294
Number of lights off 39.3 (2.18) 37.1–41.5 38.2 (3.52) 34.7–41.7 -0.276 p = 0.270

In the proactive game, the time lag (mean ± SD of soccer players and swimmers: 0.11 ± 0.03 and 0.12 ± 0.02 s; p = 0.522), the movement time (0.27 ± 0.04 and 0.30 ± 0.06 s; p = 0.399) and APAs impulse (2.34 ± 1.39 and 2.16 ± 1.01 N·s; p = 0.834) were not significantly different between the two groups.

Importantly, though soccer players were significantly more stable than swimmers presenting a higher index of stability (0.87 ± 0.09 and 0.66 ± 0.11; p < 0.01; mean ± SD of soccer players and swimmers) and a significantly less percent of falls (13.4 ± 9.5 and 34.4 ± 11.0%; p < 0.01, respectively) (Fig 3, panel a). Moreover, just soccer players, presented a significant linear correlation between APAs impulses and time lag (APAs Impulse = -1.211–32.929·time lag for soccer players: r = 0.751; p < 0.01) while there was none correlation for swimmers (APAs Impulse = 3.218–9.024·time lag for swimmers: r = 0.205; p = ns). (Fig 3, panel b). No other significant correlations were found for the proactive game.

Fig 3. Proactive game’s findings.

Fig 3

a. Percentage of falls of soccer players (white bars) and swimmers (black bars) for the proactive type of game. Average values ± SD have been reported, as well as statistical significance. b. APAs Impulse is plotted as a function of time lag for the proactive type of game. The symbols refer to: soccer players ○, and swimmers •.

As for the reactive game, the statistical analysis showed none significant difference between soccer players and swimmers: all players turned off a similar number of lights (39.3 ± 2.18 and 38.2 ± 3.52; p = 0.270) by applying the same time (0.45 ± 0.05 and 0.48 ± 0.07 s; p = 0.294).

Discussion

Our study was designed to investigate the development of anticipatory and strategic skills in total body games competitions comparing young expert soccer players (open skill-dominated sport) with swimmers (closed skill-dominated sport) of the same age and level of sport expertise.

In particular, we aimed at disentangling proactive and reactive control mechanisms in individuals trained in different sports as close and open skills related. In general, we found that while there were none differences between swimmers and soccer players in their ability to apply reactive control, soccer players outperformed swimmers when engaged in a competition where a proactive control was required. Importantly results showed that the superior ability presented by soccer players was ascribed to the proper modulation of Anticipatory Postural Adjustments in preparation to their attack to the opponent. These findings underline the specific development of skills abilities due to the peculiarity of a sport training.

Our results were consistent with previous studies [33], in defining skills/environment relationship where in a highly predictable environment closed skills are required as a prompt reaction given a known signal, while in the unpredictable environment athletes are forced to anticipate impending events by using open skills. In swimming, the sound of the starter’s gun indicates the race initiation and a fast reaction to auditory stimuli is required; a slight delay in reacting to the gun sound might change the overall result in a competition [2, 4]. On the other hand, soccer players have been trained in a team and the game is performed in a highly dynamic environment in which athletes continuously predict the ball and the opponents position now and sooner after now [37].

Here we showed that during a typical proactive competition, soccer players were able to beat the swimmers by maintaining higher stability and falling a significantly smaller number of times. Importantly, we showed that the main “weapon” soccer players used was to activate a proper action anticipation by modulating their APAs. APAs were arranged based on the amount of body impulse impinged on the force platform before action initiation and this amount of force was a function of the time gap between the action initiation of the soccer player with respect to the action initiation of the opponent. Higher impulse was impinged for more anticipated actions and lower impulse for less anticipated action, and this impulse modulation was present only for soccer players. We sustain that this was the strategy that allowed a soccer player to obtain a greater postural stability at the instant of the impact with the body’s swimmer and, as a consequence, to win the game. In other words, soccer players were able to modulate their APAs based on their force/timing relationship impinged in their body preparation defined by their prediction of future movement initiation of the opponent player [5, 37].

Our results are sustained by researches showing that open skill related athletes outperform closed skills related athletes in the proactive contests [38], but here we added the relevant information of the feedforward motor command from the motor cortex that sustains the development of these type of skills. Some researches posed the question whether results can be obtained only when the task to be performed is specific of the sport in which the athletes excel [17]. Here, we applied a game competition that involved actions that were not specific for soccer nor for swim sport. This was important for showing that the proactive type of control is independent from the type of movement performed [17].

In line with previous works [39], as in our research, reaction time has been evaluated by means of an oculo-manual coordination task using the FITLIGHT Trainer system (Sports Corp., Ontario, Canada). In this case the game was mainly based on reactive control including the competition since the two players were performing the game at the same time and they could have the sense of the other’s performance. But in this case, we found similar performance for soccer players and swimmers, suggesting that all the recruited athletes presented a high physical condition, promptness, ability to face stressful situations and great concentration [3]. Furthermore, all our subjects could execute likewise the mental operations needed by the task at hand, with the same speed of processing, showing an equal index of efficiency [40].

We believe that the results from our study are unlikely confounded by the consistency of the sample gender. Future studies should be done considering also a female gender sample.

Limitations

This paper presents a number of limitations. We recruited a limited number of participants, 16 athletes, but this was partially compensated by a large number of trials performed by each participant: at least 65 trials for each couple of athletes. In future works, it would be interesting to involve a larger number of participants and testing different levels of sport experience [41] and following closely the development of reactive and proactive control ability as children grow and acquire over time specialized training. An interesting additional component that could be considered in future experiment will be eye and head movement to detect more finely the anticipated intention of the player and or possible subtle fake strategies. This issue could be addressed in future by employing some specific technologies such as the electronic goggles and a head movement controller.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Normality test.

(PDF)

S1 Data. File data.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Edoardo Ribani and Enrico Salgarollo for their help in data collection and analysis, and the subjects for participating the study.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Knapp B. Skill in sport: The attainment of proficiency. London: Routledge & Paul; 1963. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Itamar N, Schwartz D, Melzer I. Postural control: differences between young judokas and swimmers. J Sports Med Physic Fitness. 2013;53: 483–489. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Zhongfan L, Inomata K, Takeda T. Soccer players’ and closed-skill athletes’ execution of a complex motor skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 2002;95: 213–218. 10.2466/pms.2002.95.1.213 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wang CH, Chang CC, Liang YM, Shih CM, Chiu WS, Tseng P, et al. Open vs. closed skill sports and the modulation of inhibitory control. PLOS ONE. 2013;8(2): e55773. 10.1371/journal.pone.0055773 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Aglioti SM, Cesari P, Romani M, Urgesi C. Action anticipation and motor resonance in elite basketball players. Nature Neuroscience. 2008;11(9): 1109–1116. 10.1038/nn.2182 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Allard F, Starkes JL. Motor-skill experts in sports, dance, and other domains. In Ericsson K.A., & Smith J.(Eds.) Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. Cambridge: (pp. 126–152); 1991. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Di Russo F, Bultrini A, Brunelli S, Delussu AS, Polidori L, Taddei F, et al. Benefits of sports participation for executive function in disabled athletes. Journal of Neurotrauma. 2010;27: 2309–2319. 10.1089/neu.2010.1501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gould D, Jackson S, Finch L. Sources of stress in national champion figure skaters. J Sport Exercise Psychol. 1993;15: 134–159. 10.1080/02701367.1993.10607599 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Savelsbergh GJP, Williams AM, Van der Kamp J, Ward P. Anticipation and visual search behaviour in expert soccer goalkeepers. Ergonomics. 2005;48: 1686–1697. 10.1080/00140130500101346 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Shim J, Carlton LG, Chow JW, Chae WS. The use of anticipatory visual cues by highly skilled tennis players. Journal of Motor Behaviour. 2005;37(2): 164–175. 10.3200/JMBR.37.2.164-175 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mori S, Ohtani Y, Jmanaka K. Reaction times and anticipatory skills of karate athletes. Human Movement Science. 2002;21(2): 213–230. 10.1016/s0167-9457(02)00103-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Vences de Brito A, Silva C. Reaction time in karate athletes. Journal of Martial Arts Anthropology. 2011;11(4): 35–39. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Metin B, Wiersema JR, Verguts T, Gasthuys R, van Der Meere JJ, Roeyers H, et al. Event rate and reaction time performance in ADHD: testing predictions from the state regulation deficit hypothesis using an ex-Gaussian model. Children Neuropsychology. 2016;22: 99–109. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Layton L. A deconstruction of Kohut’s concept of the self. Contemporary Psychoanalysis. 1991;26(3): 420–429. 10.1080/00107530.2015.1056076 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Collett C. Strategic aspects of reaction time in world-class sprinters. Perceptual Motor Skills. 1999;88(1): 65–75. 10.2466/pms.1999.88.1.65 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Williams AM, Huys R, Canal-Bruland R, Hagemann N. The dynamical information underpinning anticipation skill. Human Movement Science. 2008;28(3): 362–370. 10.1016/j.humov.2008.10.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Yu Q, Chan CCH, Chua B, Fu ASM. Motor skill experience modulates executive control for task switching. Acta Psychologica. 2017;180: 88–97. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.08.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Braver TS. The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2012;16(2): 106–113. 10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Taddei D. From rational to behavioural: new tendencies in decision theory and cognitive psychology and their impact on the routine level analysis of organizations. PhD Thesis; 2012. Available from: https://eprints.luiss.it/1090/.
  • 20.Desmurget M, Grafton S. Forward modelling allows feedback control for fast reaching movements. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2000;4(11): 423–431. 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01537-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Belen’kii VE, Gurfinkel VS, Pal’tsev EL. Control elements of voluntary movements. Biofizika. 1967;12: 135–141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Zattara M, Bouisset S. Posturo-kinetic organization during the early phase of voluntary upper limb movement. 1. Normal subjects. Journal Neurology Neurosurgery Psychiatry. 1988;51: 956–965. 10.1136/jnnp.51.7.956 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Massion J. Movement, posture and equilibrium: Interaction and coordination. Progress in Neurobiology. 1992;38(1): 35–56. 10.1016/0301-0082(92)90034-c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Duarte M, Latash M. Effects of postural task requirements on the speed-accuracy trade-off. Experimental Brain Research. 2007;180(3): 457–467. 10.1007/s00221-007-0871-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Piscitelli D, Falaki A, Solnik S, Latash M. Anticipatory Postural Adjustments and Anticipatory Synergy Adjustments: preparing to a postural perturbation with predictable and unpredictable direction. Experimental Brain Research. 2017;235(3): 713–730. 10.1007/s00221-016-4835-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bertucco M, Cesari P. Does movement planning follow Fitt’s law? Scaling anticipatory postural adjustments with movement speed and accuracy. Neuroscience. 2010;171: 205–213. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.08.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bertucco M, Cesari P, Latash M. Fitts’ Law in Early Postural Adjustments. Neuroscience. 2013;12(231): 61–69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lee Y, Liang JN, Chen B, Aruin AS. Characteristics of medial-lateral postural control while exposed to the external perturbation in step initiation. Scientific Reports. 2019;9: 16817. 10.1038/s41598-019-53379-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Aruin AS, Latash ML. Directional specificity of postural muscles in feed-forward postural reactions during fast voluntary arm movements. Exp Brain Res.1995;103: 323–332. 10.1007/BF00231718 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Yamagata M, Gruben K, Falaki A, Ochs WL, Latash ML. Biomechanics of Vertical Posture and Control with Referent Joint Configurations. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2020;53(5): 1–11. 10.1080/00222895.2020.1723483 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Yamagata M, Falaki A, Latash ML. Stability of vertical posture explored with unexpected mechanical perturbations: synergy indices and motor equivalence. Experimental Brain Research. 2018;236(2). 10.1007/s00221-018-5239-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Jackson RC, Warren S, Abernethy B. Anticipation skill and susceptibility to deceptive movement. Acta Psychologica. 2006;123(3): 355–371. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.02.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Nuri L, Shadmehr A, Ghotbi N, Behrouz Attarbashi M. Reaction time and anticipatory skill of athletes in open and closed skill-dominated sport. European Journal of Sport Science. 2013;13(5): 431–436. 10.1080/17461391.2012.738712 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Yu Q, Chau BKH, Lam BYH, Wong AWK, Peng J, Chan CCH. Neural processes of proactive and reactive controls modulated by motor-skill experiences. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2019;13: Article 404. 10.3389/fnhum.2019.00404 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Aruin AS, Latash ML (1996) Anticipatory postural adjustments during self-initiated perturbations of different magnitude triggered by a standard motor action. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 101:497–503. 10.1016/s0013-4694(96)95219-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Thomas JR, Nelson JK, Silverman SJ. Research methods in statistical analysis. 5th ed., Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, United States: (pp. 125–145); 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Tomeo E, Cesari P, Aglioti SM, Urgesi C. Fooling the kickers but not the goalkeepers: behavioral and neurophysiological correlates of fake action detection in soccer. Cerebral Cortex. 2011;23(11): 2765–2778. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Fontani G, Lodi L, Felici A, Migliorini S. Attention in athletes of high and low experience engaged in different open skill sports. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 2006;102(3): 791–805. 10.2466/pms.102.3.791-805 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Reigal RE, Barrero S, Martin I, Morales-Sanchez V, Juarez-Ruiz de Mier R, Hernandez-Mendo A. Relationships between reaction time, selective attention, physical activity, and physical fitness in children. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019;10: Article 2278. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02278 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Boisgontier MP, Wittenberg GF, Fujiyama H, Levin O, Swinnen SP. Complexity of central processing in simple and choice multi-limb reaction-time tasks. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9(2): e90457. 10.1371/journal.pone.0090457 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Deary IJ, Geoff D. Reaction time, age, and cognitive ability: longitudinal findings from age 16 to 63 years in representative population samples. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition. 2005;12(2): 187–215. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Cosimo Urgesi

19 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-36591

Anticipatory and pre-planned actions: a comparison between young soccer players and swimmers

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cesari,

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.

The reviewer who has evaluated your MS has judged it interesting and well conducted. A number of suggestions and remarks however should be addressed before endorsing its publication. I've read the MS and agree with the reviewer's remarks. Please also double check language use for amending some errors.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 05 2021 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Cosimo Urgesi

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.Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

 "NO - The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

At this time, please address the following queries:

  1. Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

  2. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

  3. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

  4. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors 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.

3. Please state in your methods section whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB approved the lack of parent or guardian consent.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise your manuscript.

General comments:

This study aimed to investigate anticipatory and pre-planned actions in young athletes (eight soccer players and eight swimmers). Although the study targets an important topic for better understating the difference in reactive and proactive control for sport considering open and closed skills, several shortcomings should be addressed to improve the readability and reproducibility of the manuscript.

Major comments

Introduction

• While the Introduction appears to be sound, the structure is not so clear, making it difficult to follow. I advise the Authors to improve the flow and readability of the text. For example, the Aims should be at the end of the Introduction paragraph.

• Authors should point out that Anticipatory Postural Adjustments (APAs) are usually studied with EMG and/or with centre of pressure displacement. Usally APAs are seen prior to an expected postural perturbation as early EMG changes [reviewed in Belenkiy et al. 1967; Massion 1992].

• Add a small paragraph about using the Ground Reaction forces when investigating APAs.

• Authors should clearly state the underlying hypotheses for developing the study. The hypotheses should be linked with the objectives.

Material and methods

• Please add the statistical tests used and the P values for investigating differences between Participants.

• Why were no females recruited? This should be discussed.

• Data Analysis:

The stability index was defined according to a dichotomous scale 0 and 1. Why did the Authors not use the data from the force platform (e.g., COP displacement) to determine the loss of stability?

Moreover, the same operator that analyzed the video, may carry a systematic error.

APAs data processing should be more detailed. How the GRFs ground reaction force components (Fz,Fx, and Fz) were computed?. How was the data filtered?

There is no mention of durations, amplitudes, and impulses of the reaction forces.

For the anterior-posterior GRF was set a threshold value to achieve? How were these values determined? For example, the anterior-posterior GRFs exceeded ±2 SD from its mean computed across trials in one session for each participant.

How were APAs impulse defined? It is unclear the measurement units of APAs.

Results

• Authors should add plots of the anterior-posterior GRF, at least for one subject (e.g., average across trials). Readers will appreciate the time series for the APA impulses.

• Please add in the Results section the statistical test used, with the test values and the degrees of freedom.

• The effect size reported should be the (r) for the Mann-Whitney U-test that is Effect size: r ( = Z/(√Nobs)Z/(Nobs)). Here the Cohen’s d is reported, thus overestimating the effect.

• The small sample size might bias the correlation based on the coefficient of correlation (r). I wonder if robust correlation methods (e.g., bootstrapping, data winsorizing, skipped correlations) or the Spearman rank correlation should be applied.

Discussion

The discussion is well presented.

Minor Comments

In the abstract should be stated the age (mean and SD) of the participants. Add how the APAs were measured, e.g., through the force platform. It may be interesting to add the APAs values.

Once an abbreviation has been presented, it is not necessary to repeat it, e.g., Line 125, the ground reaction force (GRF)

**********

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

[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. 2021 Apr 7;16(4):e0249635. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249635.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


19 Feb 2021

Comments from the Editor and Reviewers

We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her helpful comments and for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We believe that, by addressing the Reviewer’s concerns, the revised manuscript has significantly improved.

Major changes are:

• the data analysis when investigating APAs has been supplemented with further details, as requested. A new figure (Figure 2 in this revised manuscript) has been reported;

• related references are added;

Changes introduced in the manuscript are enlightened in yellow.

Following we will consider the comments point by point. The modifications to the text will be reported in italics.

Reviewer #1

Major comments

Introduction

While the Introduction appears to be sound, the structure is not so clear, making it difficult to follow. I advise the Authors to improve the flow and readability of the text. For example, the Aims should be at the end of the Introduction paragraph.

ANSWER. As suggested, the change has been done by adding the explanation of the main aim of the study at the end of the introduction.

“[…] The main aim of this study is to shade light on the role of skills development (open and closed) by comparing APAs, by means of the ground reaction forces, in children highly experienced in open and closed disciplines respectively soccer and swim […]”.

Authors should point out that Anticipatory Postural Adjustments (APAs) are usually studied with EMG and/or with center of pressure displacement. Usually APAs are seen prior to an expected postural perturbation as early EMG changes [reviewed in Belenkiy et al. 1967; Massion 1992].

ANSWER. We agree with the point raised by the Reviewer. We are aware of EMG (see references 22,25), and ground reaction forces (see references 24,26-27) and COP displacement (see reference 28) for investigating the Anticipatory Postural Adjustments (APAs). As required, these concepts are explained in more details in the revised version of the manuscript.

“In literature, APAs are usually studied with EMG analysis (i.e. early postural adjustments, EPA) [22-25] and/or with force platform [24,26-28]. APAs are typically quantified in terms of their magnitude or the onset timing of the signal (i.e. EMG or GRFs) before the initiation of the movement [26,27]. When measured with the ground reaction force [29-31], APAs onset, amplitude and impulse are usually analysed from the ground reaction forces (GRFs) [24,26-,27] or center of pressure [28]”.

Add a small paragraph about using the Ground Reaction Forces when investigating APAs.

ANSWER. A small paragraph has been inserted (see also the comment above) and related references added (see references 29-31).

[29] Aruin AS, Latash ML. Directional specificity of postural muscles in feed-forward postural reactions during fast voluntary arm movements. Exp Brain Res.1995;103: 323-332.

[30] Yamagata M, Gruben K, Falaki A, Ochs WL, Latash ML. Biomechanics of Vertical Posture and Control with Referent Joint Configurations. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2020;53(5): 1-11.

[31] Yamagata M, Falaki A, Latash ML. Stability of vertical posture explored with unexpected mechanical perturbations: synergy indices and motor equivalence. Experimental Brain Research. 2018;236(2). Doi: 10.1007/s00221-018-5239-x.

Authors should clearly state the underlying hypotheses for developing the study. The hypotheses should be linked with the objectives.

ANSWER. The integration has been made as suggested.

“In a proactive game, we would expect a greater postural stability accomplished with a lower risk of falling for the open-skills players in comparison to the closed-skills ones. This augmented ability would be reflected by an early modulation of the Anticipatory Postural Adjustments. In a reactive game, instead, we assume no differences between open and closed skills”.

Material and methods

Please add the statistical tests used and the P values for investigating differences between participants.

ANSWER. We have made the changes as suggested.

“[…] A Student t-test for paired data was performed to investigate group differences in anthropometrical and general characteristics (p < 0.05). […]. For each variable (movement time, time lag, APAs impulse, and stability index), we performed a Mann-Whitney U-test for independent samples to investigate differences between soccer players and swimmers (n = 8; p < 0.05) […]”.

Why were no females recruited? This should be discussed.

ANSWER. We recruit male subjects mainly for a reason. Given the nature of the task, it was required to match along with the level of sport experience also the anthropometric measures in terms of body height and weight since one of the crucial factors of the proactive game was the “homogeneity” between players. It was difficult to find adolescents’ females that matched the anthropometric measures for the two sport disciplines, and particularly due to the difficulty to recruit highly experienced females playing soccer.

“We believe that the results from our study are unlikely confounded by the consistency of the sample gender. Future studies should be done considering also a female gender sample.”.

Data Analysis

The stability index was defined according to a dichotomous scale 0 and 1. Why did the Authors not use the data from the force platform (e.g., COP displacement) to determine the loss of stability?

ANSWER. The stability index was defined according to the displacement of at least one foot from the floor. Importantly such displacement can only be detected by a video analysis. The COP migration instead, does not capture such changes, considering that most of the time the feet’ detachments from the floor were of a very small amplitude.

The videos were checked by one operator by applying a frame-by-frame analysis of the movement kinematics. The task for the operator was to define the presence of the displacement of at least one foot from the floor, and this operation did not include any bias given by a subjective interpretation; in order to assure more careful precision since the video checking was performed “manually” we performed the analysis twice.

APAs data processing should be more detailed. How the GRFs ground reaction force components (Fz, Fx, and Fz) were computed? How was the data filtered?

ANSWER. A priori analysis of the anticipatory postural phase showed a no monotonic function of the anterior-posterior GRFs (GRFx). Therefore, we opted for computing the absolute impulse generated by this force to quantify the magnitude of the APAs. This parameter was calculated as the integral of the anterior-posterior over the 200 ms before the initiation of the movement. It is worth noting that, we only considered the anterior-posterior component of force because the movement took place mainly in such direction during the game.

These force data were low pass filtered at 20 Hz by using a fifth-order, zero-lag Butterworth filter (same as for the acceleration data).

“Two force platforms (model OR-5, AMTI, USA: 90 x 90 cm and model Kistler, Switzerland: 40 x 60 cm) were used to record the three components of the ground reaction forces with a sampling rate of 2000 Hz. Only the anterior-posterior component (GRFx) has been used for further analysis”.

There is no mention of durations, amplitudes, and impulses of the reaction forces.

ANSWER. One of the proactive game’s rules was that the players were free to decide when to initiate their action; therefore, the movement onset was not standardized across trials. Differently than works investigating APAs, in this experiment the onset was defined by the diverse situations occurred during the game, as for instance: i) the player moved before the opponent player (i.e. anticipation); ii) the player moved in response to the movement of the opponent player; iii) the two players moved quite simultaneously. To better clarify the task, we added the timing information.

“After the push command players were free to decide when to initiate the action. No constraints for time initiation of the movement was given”.

Since the game was initiated autonomously by each player, the definition of the time onset was not consistent across trials. As a consequence, we considered to integrate the anterior-posterior force data in a window time defined between the initiation of movement (T0) and 200 ms before this instant. This procedure has been already proved in previous studies (see references 29 and 35); we included related information in the text.

[35] Aruin AS, Latash ML (1996) Anticipatory postural adjustments during self-initiated perturbations of different magnitude triggered by a standard motor action. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 101:497-503.

Therefore, our impulse corresponds to the integrated force multiplied by the window time considered (measurement unit of Newton * second).

More information about this have been inserted in the Data Analysis section.

“Also, the force data were digitally low-pass filtered at 20 Hz using a fifth order, zero-lag Butterworth filter. Anticipatory Postural Adjustments (APAs) were calculated as the absolute impulse generated by the anterior-posterior GRF over a window time from -200 ms to T0. It is worth noting that, we only considered the anterior-posterior component of force because the movement took place mainly in such direction during the game. The fixed time of 200 ms was chosen based on previous APAs studies during fast voluntary movements [29,35], as well as a priori visual inspection of the GRFs during the data analysis”.

For the anterior-posterior GRF was set a threshold value to achieve? How were these values determined? For example, the anterior-posterior GRFs exceeded ± 2 SD from its mean computed across trials in one session for each participant.

ANSWER. No threshold parameters were taken into consideration. All trials were considered for the analysis. We added this information in the text (see also the comment above).

How were APAs impulse defined? It is unclear the measurement units of APAs.

ANSWER. We calculate the amount (i.e. amplitude) of the anterior-posterior force considering the window time (from -200 ms to T0). The measurement units of such impulse was then Newton * second. We added more detailed explanations in the text (see also the comment above).

Results

Authors should add plots of the anterior-posterior GRF, at least for one subject (e.g., average across trials). Readers will appreciate the time series for the APAs impulses.

ANSWER. We thank for the suggestion, and to appreciate the time series for the APAs impulses we present a (new) Figure 2 showing one representative trial of the anterior-posterior GRF (we considered not pertinent presenting the average data across trials due to the presence of variability linked to the different strategies taken during the game).

“Fig 2. A representative trial of the anterior-posterior GRF.

T0 is the instant at which the subject initiated the movement; T1 is the instant of impact; absolute APAs impulse has been calculated as the integrated signal of the anterior-posterior GRF over a fixed window time (from -200 ms to T0)”.

Please add in the Results section the statistical test used, with the test values and the degrees of freedom.

ANSWER. Both the Statistical Analysis and the Result sections have been modified by following this suggestion. As there are no parameter values being estimated from the data in the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test, it doesn’t really involve degrees of freedom in the same way as t-tests and other parametric tests do. The number of cases and means have been reported for each group.

“There were no significant differences between the two groups in mean age, height, weight and years of experience (see Table 1) (Student t-test for paired data; p < 0.05).

Average and standard deviation values measured in both proactive and reactive game are reported in Table 2 for soccer players and swimmers (Mann-Whitney U-test for independent samples; p < 0.05)”.

The effect size reported should be the (r) for the Mann-Whitney U-test that is Effect size: r (= Z/(√Nobs)Z/(Nobs)). Here the Cohen’s d is reported, thus overestimating the effect.

ANSWER. As kindly suggested, in Table 2 it has now been reported the (r) values for the Mann-Whitney U-test.

The small sample size might bias the correlation based on the coefficient of correlation (r). I wonder if robust correlation methods (e.g., bootstrapping, data winsorizing, skipped correlations) or the Spearman rank correlation should be applied.

The decision to apply the Pearson correlation instead of Spearman rank correlation was taken for these reasons:

1- Pearson correlation is applicable for a normal distribution while Spearman is suitable for non-normal distribution. The data in this experiment follow a normal distribution.

2- When data are normally distributed Pearson correlation is still suggested even in presence of a small sample size.

For more details, see Kowalski CT. On the Effects of Non-Normality on the Distribution of the Sample Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics), 1972;21(1): 1-12.

Discussion

The discussion is well presented.

ANSWER. Thank you for this positive comment.

Minor Comments

In the abstract should be stated the age (mean and SD) of the participants. Add how the APAs were measured, e.g., through the force platform.

ANSWER. The age of the participants has now been reported, as well as how the APAs were measured.

“[…] Sixteen young (11-12 years) athletes (eight soccer players and eight swimmers). […] By means of kinematic (i.e. movement time and duration) and dynamic analysis through the force platform (i.e. Anticipatory Postural Adjustments, APAs) […]”.

It may be interesting to add the APAs values.

ANSWER. We prefer not to insert these values in the abstract, but just to report them in the text (and in Table 2).

Once an abbreviation has been presented, it is not necessary to repeat it, e.g., Line 125, the ground reaction force (GRF).

ANSWER. S

Attachment

Submitted filename: ResponsetoReviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Cosimo Urgesi

17 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-36591R1

Anticipatory and pre-planned actions: a comparison between young soccer players and swimmers

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cesari,

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 address the two minor revisions requested by the reviewer before I can endorse publication.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 01 2021 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Cosimo Urgesi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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.

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

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 #1: 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 #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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 #1: 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 #1: 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 #1: Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise your Manuscript.

I appreciate your changes made on the paper.

I do not have any major Comments.

Minor Comments:

Line 247 – 248. I think there is a typo error. P values should be p > 0.05 as no significant differences were detected in between the two groups in mean age, height, weight and years of of experience.

Pleas add a note to (r) in Table 2 as Effect size. It may be misleading as later r is the correlation coefficient.

**********

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 #1: 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. 2021 Apr 7;16(4):e0249635. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249635.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


17 Mar 2021

Reviewer #1

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise your Manuscript.

I appreciate your changes made on the paper.

I do not have any major Comments.

ANSWER. Thank you very much for your positive comment.

Minor Comments

Line 247 - 248. I think there is a typo error. P values should be p > 0.05 as no significant differences were detected in between the two groups in mean age, height, weight and years of experience.

ANSWER. This was a typing mistake: sorry about this.

Please add a note to (r) in Table 2 as Effect size. It may be misleading as later r is the correlation coefficient.

ANSWER. The integration has been made as suggested.

Attachment

Submitted filename: ResponsetoReviewers_1703.docx

Decision Letter 2

Cosimo Urgesi

23 Mar 2021

Anticipatory and pre-planned actions: a comparison between young soccer players and swimmers

PONE-D-20-36591R2

Dear Dr. Cesari,

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,

Cosimo Urgesi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Cosimo Urgesi

25 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-36591R2

Anticipatory and pre-planned actions:a comparison between young soccer players and swimmers

Dear Dr. Cesari:

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. Cosimo Urgesi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Normality test.

    (PDF)

    S1 Data. File data.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ResponsetoReviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ResponsetoReviewers_1703.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES