The effects of vertical trunk supportability improvement on one-leg rebound jump efficiency.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of vertical trunk supportability improvement on activities. The study participants were 36 people. Trunk function and physical performance were evaluated using the following tests: trunk righting test (TRT), maximal isometric knee extensor strength test, side hop test, triple hop distance test, stabilometry of one-leg standing, and one-leg rebound jump. The measurement was performed three times: pre-trunk training (pre), post-trunk training for 1 month (post), and 2 months after the second measurement (detraining). Details of trunk training: Two sets of 30-s maximal lateral reach exercises on each side, following the four sets of 15-s maximal raising trunk exercises on each side. The results with TRT in post-training were significantly larger than those in pre-and detraining. Similarly, the results with one-leg rebound jump efficiency in post-training were significantly larger than those in pre-and detraining. Our findings indicate that jump efficiency changes in proportion to the change in vertical trunk supportability.

Introduction

Trunk stability involves many muscles, and these muscles are classified into local and global muscles [1]. The local muscles comprise muscles that insert into or have their origin in the lumbar vertebrae, and the global muscles comprise muscles that have their origin in the pelvis and are inserted into the thorax. From the structure, local muscles are important for the segmental stability between each vertebra. Hodges et al. reported that the feed-forward control of the local muscles occurs before any motion [2]. They also reported that the response of the trunk muscles is altered according to the time of upper limb movement for stable control of the trunk muscles [3]. In other words, the relationship between the trunk and motion must be such that the position and movement of the trunk can be controlled so that it can optimally produce, transmit, and control the force and motion at extremities [4, 5].

The importance of trunk function in activities such as running and jumping has been widely reported [2, 6–9]. Butcher et al. found that both trunk stability and leg strength training, but not trunk stability only or leg strength training only, further increased the vertical takeoff velocity between the third- and ninth-week testing periods in athletes [6]. According to Leetun et al., hip and trunk weakness in female athletes reduces their ability to stabilize their hip and trunk more than male athletes. The results suggested that female athletes may move their hip joints and trunk more than male athletes, which is associated with noncontact injuries [7]. Melegati et al. divided soccer players into an intervention group that performed trunk stability exercises and a control group that performed lower extremity strength exercises. The intervention group had a 39.71% reduction in the injury incidence rate compared to the control group. The reasons for this result are dynamic trunk control, dynamic and static balance, neuromuscular control, and improved flexibility and strength of the major muscle groups of the pelvic girdle [9]. These reports suggest that improving trunk function contributes to improving performance and preventing injury. Therefore, trunk function training is often provided in the field.

Most trunk function training methods are performed with the patient in the supine position. However, when the importance of the core in sports performance was examined in athletes, the results were not very promising [10-12]. One possible reason for this discrepancy is that the core test is not specific to motor skills [13]. Considering that the trunk receives gravity in a vertical direction intermittently, a static muscle endurance test is not an accurate assessment to evaluate the role of the core when considering the athletic performance in a healthy athletic population. Currently, neither are there means to dynamically assess the core and its potential role in athletic performance, nor is there a test to evaluate how well the core transfers the forces [13]. Therefore, Kinoshita et al. suggested that it is important to evaluate and train the vertical trunk function in bipedal walking [14]. A novel method named the trunk righting test (TRT) was recently described to evaluate vertical trunk function [14-16]. In this method, the patient is evaluated in the sitting position, and the vertical trunk supportability is assessed by loading the vertical direction. The trunk function evaluated by a TRT is reportedly correlated with the TRT measuring side (ipsilateral side) knee extension strength, ipsilateral side dynamic balance test, and timed up and go test in patients with knee osteoarthritis [16]. This result would assess the ability of the trunk to resist gravity. It would be relevant to the evaluation and treatment of the trunk in sports movements such as running, jumping, and cutting against gravity. However, it is unclear which activities can be performed better with improvement in vertical trunk supportability, achieved through rehabilitation. This may help develop effective rehabilitation strategies. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of vertical trunk supportability improvement on activities.

Materials and methods

Of the 41 healthy male and female university students initially selected for analysis, we excluded those with neurological or orthopedic abnormalities and those who complained of pain during the measurement were judged to be at risk of participating in the measurement. These 41 individuals were chosen randomly. The remaining 36 (16 males, 20 females; mean age, 19.7 ± 0.7 years; mean height, 164.0 ± 8.0 cm; mean weight, 60.5 ± 11.7 kg) were enrolled as study participants, and all participants were measured bilaterally. All participants were students who did not participate in sports on a regular basis. All participants understood the purpose of this study and provided written informed consent prior to participation according to the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of Shijonawate Gakuen University (approval number: 20–7).

Trunk function and physical performance were evaluated using the following tests: TRT [15, 16], maximal isometric knee extensor strength test [17], side hop test [18], triple hop distance test [19], stabilometry of one-leg standing [20], and one-leg rebound jump.

The TRT was performed as described in a previous report [15, 16]. Briefly, the subjects were seated in a box with their feet above the ground. The subject was in a sitting position with his shoulders moved 10 cm outward from the median sitting position, and the sensor pad was fixed on the inner part of the acromioclavicular joint by adjusting the length of the belt restraint strap to be perpendicular to the bearing surface. The subjects applied maximum power to the belt for 5 s, and the highest values were measured using a handheld dynamometer (μTas F-1; ANIMA Co., Tokyo, Japan; Fig 1). The test was conducted with a posture mirror in front and instructed that the line connecting both shoulders was parallel to the ground. The measurements were repeated thrice with at least a >30-s interval to negate the influence of fatigue. The patients were confirmed to have no fatigue. The mean of the three measurements was normalized by dividing the body weight. Measurements were performed bilaterally. This test has been reported to have an intraclass correlation coefficient of over 0.90 and can be performed with excellent reproducibility with the same examiner [15].

Fig 1

Trunk righting test.

The maximum isometric knee extensor strength test was performed using a handheld dynamometer. The participant was instructed to sit in a median position and place both hands on the upper limbs to prevent compensation. The handheld dynamometer strap was secured to a standardized attachment on the couch leg. The length of the strap allows for isometric contraction with the knee at 90° during extension. The handheld dynamometer was positioned vertically in front of the tibia at the center of the medial ankle. The maximum isometric knee extensor strength was measured thrice. The average of the three measurements was normalized by dividing the weight, and that value was used in this study. This test has been reported to have an intraclass correlation coefficient of over 0.92 and can be performed with excellent reproducibility within the same examiner [17].

The side hop test was performed according to a previous report [18]. Briefly, the subjects jumped between 30 cm and one leg 10 times quickly. The time was measured three times, and the average value was used for the evaluations. If the player stepped on the line or missed the balance, the experiment was repeated. This test has been reported to have an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.84 and can be performed with excellent reproducibility [21].

The triple hop distance test measured the distance after three consecutive jumps forward on a single leg. The jumps were required to perform with the ipsilateral legs and finish with a single-leg landing. The measurement was performed three times, and the average value was used as the measured value. This test has been reported to have an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.88 and can be performed with excellent reproducibility [22].

The measurement of stabilometry of single-leg standing, including the total locus length, area of sway, locus length per unit area, and center of pressure speed, was performed using a center of gravity sway meter (G-5500; ANIMA Co., Tokyo, Japan; Fig 2), modified from the one use by Ageberg et al. [20]. Briefly, the contralateral leg was kept in a neutral hip position with 90° of knee joint flexion during single-leg standing. Both upper limbs were placed in front of the chest. The subjects were instructed to look and focus on one point 65 cm ahead. The measurements were performed three times for 10 s, and the average value was measured. The subjects practiced the maneuver before the test. A retry was performed only when the posture collapsed. The locus length per unit area was calculated by dividing the total locus length by the area of sway. This test has been reported to have an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.68–0.83 and can be performed with excellent reproducibility [20].

Fig 2

Force platform.

The one-leg rebound jump was measured using a floor reaction force meter (AMTI, Inc., USA, Massachusetts, Watertown) to determine the jump height and jump efficiency as modified by Kariyama et al. [23]. The floor reaction force meter was measured at a sampling frequency of 1000 Hz. Briefly, jumps consisted of four repeated rebound jumps in the vertical direction with a one-leg takeoff from a standing posture. During the jump, the subjects were instructed to keep the contact time as short as possible and to jump as high as possible during the fourth jump. The fourth measurement was used for the evaluation (Fig 3). The same directed two-legged jump test by Kariyama et al. showed an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.97. This study was reduced with one leg [23].

Fig 3

One leg rebound jump.

Jumps consisted of four repeated rebound jumps in the vertical direction with a one-leg take-off from a standing posture. For rebound jump, the subjects were instructed to keep the contact time as short as possible and to jump as high as possible during the fourth jump. The fourth measurement was used.

The flight time and railroad crossing time were measured based on the floor reaction force data. The flight time was defined as the time from the foot takeoff when the floor reaction force returned to the baseline, to foot landing when the floor reaction force increased again. The time from foot landing when the floor reaction force rose again from the baseline to the foot release when the floor reaction returned to the baseline was defined as the railroad crossing time.

Jump efficiency was calculated using the quotient of the jump height and railroad crossing time. The jump height was calculated based on the obtained flight time (= 1/8 × gravity acceleration × flight time2) [24]. A gravitational acceleration of 9.81 m/s2 was used for the calculation. The measurement was performed twice, and a larger jump height was used as the result.

The measurement was performed three times: pre-trunk training (pre), post-trunk training for 1 month (post), and 2 months after the second measurement (detraining). Details of trunk training: Two sets of 30-s maximal lateral reach exercises on each side, following the four sets of 15-s maximal raising trunk exercises on each side (Fig 4). Butcher et al. performed basic trunk stability exercises with little external load in the first phase of trunk stability training, and the method involved three sets of five repetitions. Each posture was held for 5 s [6]. Melegati’s research showed that the training was repeated four times for 20 s on each side [9]. The intervention was determined based on these reports and the subjects’ implementation of the program. Trunk training was conducted three times a week, one of which was conducted with all participants to check the training and implementation status. One month (4 weeks) of short trunk training was conducted for the nervous system, such as muscle recruitment, rate coding, and synchronization.

Fig 4

Trunk training.

Subjects had two sets of 30 second maximal lateral reach exercises on each side (A) and the second had four sets of 15 second maximal raising trunk exercises on each side (B).

Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS statistical program (version 21, IBM Corporation). Based on the sample size calculated with the G*power 3.1.9 program (α level 0.05, power 0.80, and estimated effect size 0.25), the total sample size required was 29. Therefore, we included 36 subjects, and the post hoc analysis for one-way repeated measures ANOVA further confirmed that the power is 0.727. Before using statistics, the normal distribution of data was confirmed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Parametric tests were conducted using one-way repeated measures ANOVA of variance, followed by multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni test. Nonparametric tests were conducted using the Friedman test, followed by multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni test. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

The results are presented in Fig 5. There were significant differences among the TRT, maximal isometric knee extensor strength test, side hop test, jump height, jump efficiency, and center of pressure speed. The results with TRT in post-training were significantly larger than those in pre-and detraining. Similarly, the results with one-leg rebound jump efficiency in post-training were significantly larger than those in pre-and detraining. On the other hand, the results in post-training with maximal isometric knee extensor strength test were significantly larger, and with the side hop test significantly faster, than the results in pre-testing; however, these results were comparable with those of detraining. The results of the triple hop distance test and the stabilometry of leg standing were comparable between the tree measurements, except for the results of the center of pressure speed (which significantly reduced following detraining).

Fig 5

The result of the measurement.

Discussion

The most important finding of the present study is that the one-leg rebound jump improved after trunk training, and the effects did not persist after the training was discontinued. The results suggested that the improvement in the short ground contact time of the foot during a rebound jump is caused by the improvement in vertical trunk supportability. Therefore, jump efficiency changes with the change in vertical trunk supportability.

Hsu et al. have shown that symmetric trunk movement in the vertical direction is significantly lower in patients with ankle fracture than in healthy subjects [25]. Matsumoto et al. reported that weakness of the lower trunk muscles could lead to poor control of vertical acceleration of the center of gravity during the loading and mid-stance phases of the gait cycle [26]. Furthermore, Kinoshita et al. reported that physical functions are correlated with vertical trunk supportability evaluated by TRT in patients with knee OA, suggesting that healthcare workers must consider trunk function as well as lower extremity function to improve physical function. These results suggest that the decrease in vertical trunk supportability leads to a decrease in lower limb load; thus, vertical trunk supportability is strongly related to lower limb load.

Jump efficiency is important for high-velocity concentric and eccentric muscular contractions involving the muscular stretch-shortening cycle. Furthermore, plyometric training is important for these improvements. Balance and stability during plyometric training regulate proper muscle contraction before landing. They were adjusted in a feed-forward manner [27]. Therefore, jump efficiency is important for activities. These results suggest that vertical trunk supportability is important in bipedal animal activity and is useful in longitudinal studies. The strength of the lower limbs can be considered to improve jump efficiency. The results of this study showed that the maximal isometric knee extensor strength test of the lower limb strength index increased significantly from pre-to post-intervention. However, there was no significant change from post-detraining. Therefore, this result is not considered a mere increase or decrease in lower limb strength. The results of this study support the findings of Butcher et al., who reported that 9 weeks of trunk stability training was as effective in increasing the vertical takeoff speed as leg strength training or a combination of trunk stability and leg strength training [6]. Mills et al. studied vertical jump heights after 10 weeks of different trunk training and found that the local stability muscle training group improved significantly after training, while the global mobility muscle training group did not [28]. These reports indicate that jumping ability improves regardless of the lower limb strength. However, there was no correlation between trunk stability score and vertical jump heights [28]. Therefore, it is important to note that trunk stability does not determine vertical jump heights.

The findings of several studies support those of this study. Trunk stability training has the potential to optimize the ability of the leg muscles to produce force, because it provides a stable base for the leg muscles to contract and it strengthens the neural drive [29, 30]. Butcher et al. reported that the improvement in the vertical takeoff speed after the three-week trunk stability training was due to changes in neuromuscular control or movement patterns rather than changes in muscle structure [6, 30]. This study is similar to previous studies in that the core training period was short and the load was low. Lower limb strength results were also unaffected. A rebound jump generates a large ground reaction force upon landing, so the trunk has a large vertical impact after ground contact [31, 32]. Therefore, the abdominal muscles need to be active in order to stabilize the trunk in preparation for landing and to control the position of the trunk prior to ground contact [33, 34]. The muscles in the lower back work to control the position of the trunk after ground contact and to change the direction from a downward motion to an upward motion [34]. These studies show that the center of gravity of the trunk may lead to the next activity being controlled quickly by the lower limbs. In other words, it is inferred that improvement of core function becomes easier to control to the next activity by changes in neuromuscular control or movement pattern.

Although the side hop test showing left-right agility was significantly improved from pre-to post-training, there was no significant change from post- to detraining. The side hop test has a different course than jump efficiency. This is because the side hop test is difficult, and many of the test subjects performed it for the first time. Scinicarelli et al. examined the reproducibility of the side hop test at seven days [35]. They reported good reproducibility, but significant improvement on the non-dominant side. It is likely that the complexity of performing the side hop test plays an important role in the scores obtained. They also reported that the learning effect improved the performance in the second test session as the test subjects became more familiar with the test execution and were able to perform it faster. Motor learning was performed by repeating the side hop test. Thus, the side hop test gradually improved.

This study had three limitations. First, there was no control group. A comparison between the intervention and non-intervention groups would have strengthened our results. Second, the influence of each individual’s life during the 3 months remains unknown. This may be associated with an improved maximal isometric knee extensor strength test performance. Finally, other factors that affect jump efficiency were not fully evaluated.

Conclusions

This study examined the effects of vertical trunk supportability improvement on the ability to perform activities. The most important finding of the present study is that the one-leg rebound jump improved after trunk training, but its effects this improvement did not last after the training was discontinued. We conclude that the improvement in the short ground contact time of the foot during a rebound jump is caused by the improvement in vertical trunk supportability. Our findings indicate that jump efficiency changes in proportion to the change in vertical trunk supportability.

22 Sep 2021

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,

Emiliano Cè

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 note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ"

4. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works.

- https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpts/31/3/31_jpts-2018-388/_pdf/-char/en

- https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2019.01462/full

- https://www.jospt.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2519/jospt.2007.2331

We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable, even for works which you authored. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications.

Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work.

We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough.

[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: No

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 duration of trunk training is not clear.

The characteristics of participants are missing.

Statistical analysis is not explained.

The stabilometry measure is not well explained, Why the authors do not used a stabilometric force platform?

In my opinion in the discussion should be more references, especially in this affirmation "Therefore, jump efficiency

is important for activities. These results suggest that vertical trunk supportability is important in bipedal animal activity and is useful in longitudinal studies. The strength of the lower limbs can be considered to improve jump efficiency. The results of this study showed that the maximal isometric knee extensor strength test of the lower limb strength index increased significantly from pre-to post-intervention. However, there was no significant change from post-detraining. Therefore, this result is not conside 195 red a mere increase or decrease in lower limb strength". In this affirmation ther is not refence "Lower limb strength results were also unaffected. The rebound jump has a greater centrifugal force on the trunk than on the lower limbs. The center of gravity of the trunk may lead to the next activity by being controlled quickly on the lower limbs. In other words, it is inferred that improvement of core function becomes easier to control to the next activity by changes in neuromuscular control or movement pattern" is necessary more references in the discussion there few and most are very old.

Reviewer #2: I would like to thank the journal for the opportunity to review this work. The authors presented data investigating the effect of trunk training on various functional testing. However, I am concerned about the study design, statistical analyses, and presentation of the data in the introduction, methods, and discussion sections. I have several minor comments offered below. Thank you.

Specific comments to author about the manuscript:

Line 37-43: Please add more specific explanations on trunk function of anatomical (muscles) and biomechanical perspectives during movement. Sentences within the first paragraph are vague and not informative, and further the authors did not provide sufficient data for a rational of this study.

Line 44-55: The authors mainly described a trunk righting test in the second paragraph, however, the authors did not explain how this test’s outcome can contribute to results of other tests, and how the trunk tithing test is associated other functional tests and further activities of daily living. It seems the authors did not provide thorough literature review in this area, and they need to add explanations why this study is important (a rational of this study)?

Line 44-55: No explanation on the intervention dose (a duration, frequency, set/reps, types, etc.) from previous studies. Thorough literature review is required, and should provide a sentence how this study bridges a gap from a current literature.

Line 37: what activities?

Line 41: what injury, what sports, what age? How can core stability be defined in that study?

Line 57-151: Authors should provide a validity and reliability scores of all testing. They should add whether testing protocols were adapted from previous studies or not. If not, please add more pictures regarding testing procedures to better understand how the procedures are done.

Line 166: As authors mentioned in the limitations of the study, not having a control group in the intervention study was a major concern. We can’t conclude whether pre-post changes were due to the intervention or other confounding factors.

Line 169-217: In the discussion section authors should add more relevant citations for each sentence. Some sentences are required supporting evidence, but it’s missing.

**********

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.

8 Mar 2022

The author sincerely appreciates the opportunity to improve the manuscript that has been provided by the reviewer.

The manuscript has been revised. Please review the manuscript again.

We have included the details in the "Response to reviewers".

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

25 Mar 2022

The effects of vertical trunk supportability improvement on one-leg rebound jump efficiency

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kazuaki,

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: Dear Authors, one expert in the field re-evaluated your manuscript still reporting some minor points you should consider while revising it.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 09 2022 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.

30 Mar 2022

The author sincerely appreciates the opportunity to improve the manuscript that has been provided by the academic editor and reviewer.

I understand you are occupied at the moment, but please review again .

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

11 Apr 2022

The effects of vertical trunk supportability improvement on one-leg rebound jump efficiency

PONE-D-21-14225R2

Dear Dr. Kazuaki,

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,

Emiliano Cè

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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: Thanks you for your corrections. I am agree with the addition of this reference "Cabrejas C, Solana-Tramunt M, Morales J, Campos-Rius J, Ortegón A, Nieto Guisado A, et al. The Effect of Eight-Week Functional Core Training on Core

Stability in Young Rhythmic Gymnasts: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19: 3509.

**********

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: Yes: Rosa Cabanas-Valdés

22 Apr 2022

PONE-D-21-14225R2

The effects of vertical trunk supportability improvement on one-leg rebound jump efficiency

Dear Dr. Kazuaki:

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

Professor Emiliano Cè

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE