Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31033243›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental zoology. Part A, Ecological and integrative physiology2020

An extension to the collisional model of the energetic cost of support qualitatively explains trotting and the trot-canter transition.

James R Usherwood

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental zoology. Part A, Ecological and integrative physiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

James R UsherwoodStructure and Motion Laboratory, The Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8794-4677

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/G021627/1Wellcome Trust 202854/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The majority of terrestrial mammals adopt distinct, discrete gaits across their speed range. Though there is evidence that walk, trot and gallop may be selected at speeds consistent with minimizing metabolic cost (Hoyt and Taylor, 1981, Nature, 291, 239-240), the mechanical causes underlying these costs and their changes with speed are not well understood. In particular, the paired, near-simultaneous contacts of the trot is puzzling as it appears to demand a high mechanical work that could easily be avoided with distributed contacts, as with a "running walk" gait or "tolt." Here, a simple condition is derived-a ratio including the pitch moment of inertia and back length-for which trotting is energetically advantageous because it avoids the energetic consequences of pitching. Pitching could also be avoided if the impulses from the legs were orientated through the center of mass. A range of idealized gaits is considered that achieve this zero-pitch condition, and work minimization predicts a transition from trot to canter at intermediate speeds. This can be understood from the geometric principles of achieving a "pseudoelastic" collision with each impulse (Ruina et al., 2005, J Theoretical Biol, 14, 170-192). However, at high speeds, a transition back to trot is predicted that is not observed in nature.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaEnergy MetabolismGaitMammalscantercollisiongaitgalloptrot

Identifiers

PMID31033243
PMCPMC6916616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.