Literature DB >> 11883894

Kinematic characteristics of Andalusian, Arabian and Anglo-Arabian horses: a comparative study.

M R Cano1, J Vivo, F Miró, J L Morales, A M Galisteo.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the kinematic trot characteristics of three different breeds of horse: Andalusian (AN, n = 15), Arabian (AR, n = 7) and Anglo-Arabian (AA, n = 5) using standard computer-assisted videography (25 Hz). Linear, temporal and angular parameters in fore- and hind limbs were analysed in six randomly selected strides per horse. Normalised angle-time diagrams along the complete stride were obtained for all joints angles in each breed and specific kinematic characteristics were detected graphically. AA horses displayed longer swing durations in both limbs ans a shorter angular range of motion (ARM) in scapula and pelvis inclination and in shoulder, hip and forelimb retraction-protraction angles. At lift off, stifle and tarsal joint angles were more flexed. In general, only small differences were observed in AR horse kinematics when compared with the other 2 breeds. AN horses presented negative overtracking length, which was positive in AR and AA. In AN horses the elbow and carpal joints were more flexed at the moment of maximal elevation, elbow and fore-fetlock joints also exhibited a larger ARM due to a smaller angle at maximal flexion. In the hind limbs, tarsal, hind fetlock and retraction-protraction angles presented a larger ARM in AN horses due to greater maximal flexion in the tarsal and hind fetlock joints. Fore- and hind fetlocks were also more flexed in horses from this breed. In conclusion, differences between kinematic variables at the trot were observed in the three breeds studied here, mainly in forelimb joints. The most outstanding feature was the greater forelimb flexion recorded in AN horses than in the other breeds which is consistent with the elevated movements in this breed. In AA horses, the ARM of proximal joints involved in retraction protraction in both fore- and hind limbs was smaller. All the differences observed highlighted the idiosyncratic nature of the trot in each breed; this may influence the functional capacity of each breed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11883894     DOI: 10.1053/rvsc.2001.0504

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Res Vet Sci        ISSN: 0034-5288            Impact factor:   2.534


  6 in total

1.  2D versus 3D in the kinematic analysis of the horse at the trot.

Authors:  F Miró; R Santos; J L Garrido-Castro; A M Galisteo; R Medina-Carnicer
Journal:  Vet Res Commun       Date:  2008-12-11       Impact factor: 2.459

2.  A comparison of the moment arms of pelvic limb muscles in horses bred for acceleration (Quarter Horse) and endurance (Arab).

Authors:  T C Crook; S E Cruickshank; C M McGowan; N Stubbs; A M Wilson; E Hodson-Tole; R C Payne
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2010-05-10       Impact factor: 2.610

3.  Using Different Combinations of Body-Mounted IMU Sensors to Estimate Speed of Horses-A Machine Learning Approach.

Authors:  Hamed Darbandi; Filipe Serra Bragança; Berend Jan van der Zwaag; John Voskamp; Annik Imogen Gmel; Eyrún Halla Haraldsdóttir; Paul Havinga
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2021-01-26       Impact factor: 3.576

4.  Kinematic Analysis During Straight Line Free Swimming in Horses: Part 2 - Hindlimbs.

Authors:  Emma Santosuosso; Renaud Leguillette; Tatiana Vinardell; Silvio Filho; Shannon Massie; Persephone McCrae; Sarah Johnson; Campbell Rolian; Florent David
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2022-01-31

5.  Influence of equine conformation on rider oscillation and evaluation of horses for therapeutic riding.

Authors:  Akihiro Matsuura; Emiko Ohta; Koichiro Ueda; Hiroki Nakatsuji; Seiji Kondo
Journal:  J Equine Sci       Date:  2008-04-08

6.  Comparison of Trotting Stance Detection Methods from an Inertial Measurement Unit Mounted on the Horse's Limb.

Authors:  Marie Sapone; Pauline Martin; Khalil Ben Mansour; Henry Château; Frédéric Marin
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-25       Impact factor: 3.576

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.