Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:09:54.744Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison between a sensor (3D accelerometer) and ProReflex motion capture systems to measure stride frequency of horses on a treadmill

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

Kathryn Nankervis ,
Diana Hodgins  and
David Marlin
Kathryn Nankervis
Affiliation:
Hartpury Equine Veterinary and Therapy Centre, Hartpury College, Hartpury, GloucestershireGL19 3BE, UK
Diana Hodgins
Affiliation:
European Technology for Business Ltd, Codicote Innovation Centre, Codicote, HertfordshireSG4 8WH, UK
David Marlin*
Affiliation:
Hartpury Equine Veterinary and Therapy Centre, Hartpury College, Hartpury, GloucestershireGL19 3BE, UK
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The most popular techniques used for studying equine kinematics are videographic recording combined with the analysis using a commercial software package or optoelectronic systems based on emission and detection of infrared or visible light. Such systems can be expensive, complicated to use and their use may be restricted to indoor use (in the case of infrared systems) or a limited number of strides when used outdoors. Recently, there has been considerable interest in monitoring motion using inertial measuring systems. The purpose of the present study was to determine the accuracy of the Pegasus system (European Technology for Business Ltd., Codicote, UK), which determines stride frequency directly when mounted on the withers. Eight horses of different breeds and sizes (447–588 kg) were studied at walk, trot and two speeds at canter on a treadmill. Simultaneous measurements of stride were made using the Pegasus and ProReflex motion capture systems. Mean stride frequencies (n = 8 horses) for the ProReflex and Pegasus systems at walk (0.86 ± 0.05 and 0.87 ± 0.05 strides per second, respectively), trot (1.36 ± 0.07 and 1.36 ± 0.07 strides per second, respectively) and canter (7 m s− 1: 1.92 ± 0.05 and 1.92 ± 0.05 strides per second, respectively; 8 m s− 1: 1.93 ± 0.05 and 1.94 ± 0.05 strides per second, respectively) were not significantly different (P>0.05). The mean difference between the two systems for all four speeds was − 0.002 strides per second (lower 95% CI: − 0.016; upper 95% CI: 0.011; P = 0.309). In conclusion, the differences between stride frequency measurements made with the Pegasus and ProReflex systems in horses exercising at walk, trot and slow canter on a treadmill are < 1% and not likely to be of physiological significance.

Keywords

exercisegait analysisfieldlocomotioninertialtreadmill
Type
Short Communication
Information
Comparative Exercise Physiology , Volume 5 , Issue 3-4 , November 2008 , pp. 107 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Clayton, HM and Schamhardt, HC (2001). Measurement techniques for gait analysis. In: Back, W and Clayton, HM (eds) Equine Locomotion. London: W.B. Saunders.Google Scholar
2Barrey, E and Galloux, P (1997). Analysis of the equine jumping technique by accelerometry. Equine Veterinary Journal Supplement 23: 45–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Leleu, C, Gloria, E, Renault, G and Barrey, E (2002). Analysis of trotter gait on the track by accelerometry and image analysis. Equine Veterinary Journal Supplement 34: 344–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Pfau, T, Witte, TH and Wilson, AM (2004). A method for deriving displacement data during cyclical movement using an inertial sensor. Journal of Experimental Biology 207: 3639–3648.Google Scholar