ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024
Variability in performance of agility dogs navigating a dynamic obstacle.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: During agility performance, dogs complete a preset obstacle course. The teeter, also known as the seesaw, is the only dynamic contact obstacle. Dogs handle dynamic obstacles differently than static obstacles due to the need for increased coordination and postural control. No studies have been performed evaluating dogs' abilities or biomechanical strategies to navigate the teeter. The goal of this study was to describe and quantify variability in teeter performance across a sample of dogs of differing body mass and breeds. Materials and methods: Twenty dogs of various body masses and breeds were recruited. Handlers were instructed to line their dog up approximately 5 m from the teeter and to handle the obstacle in a way to best reflect the dog's typical performance. Repetitions were filmed using a GoPro Hero 11 at 240 frames per second. Data were post processed and footfalls were manually tracked using XMALab. Descriptive statistics were used to describe both central tendency and variability. Results: Mean total obstacle completion time (from dog breaking the plane of the teeter until teeter contact with ground) was 1.31 s (sd = 0.38) and mean total footfalls on the teeter was 18.3 (sd = 3.4). Footfall patterns varied across all phases of teeter performance, with particularly noteworthy variation during descent while the teeter was moving. Some dogs were nearly completely stationary while the teeter dropped while others continued to take steps toward the end of the obstacle as the teeter was in motion. Smaller dogs had more total footfalls and longer teeter completion times than larger dogs, and dogs with a stopped contact behavior took longer to fully exit the teeter after it contacted the ground. Discussion: These data imply that dogs use a variety of biomechanical strategies to perform a dynamic obstacle. Results of this study provide insight into teeter performance and variables that can be utilized for evaluation in future biomechanical studies. This study also provides initial data on biomechanical strategies used by dogs on dynamic surfaces, which may offer insight into dynamic stability and postural control in dogs and how that may influence injury development during sport.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.