Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T17:02:46.695Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of a joint coordinate system versus multi-planar analysis for equine carpal and fetlock kinematics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2008

M C Nicodemus ,
H M Clayton  and
J L Lanovaz
M C Nicodemus*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences, Mississippi State University, Box 9815, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA
H M Clayton
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, McPhail Equine Performance Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1314, USA
J L Lanovaz
Affiliation:
College of Kinesiology, University of Saskatchewan, PAC 222, 87 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, CanadaS7N 5B2
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A kinematic multi-planar analysis (MPA) reduces a subject's three-dimensional motion to two-dimensional projections onto planes defined by a fixed global coordinate system (GCS). An alternative to this kinematic method is a joint coordinate system ( JCS) that describes the three-dimensional orientation of the segments comprising the joint with respect to each other so that the JCS moves dynamically with the horse's anatomy. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to locate where differences may occur between the joint motion measurements made using MPA and those made using JCS and to document why these differences in measurements may occur. A Peruvian Paso was recorded during six walking trials using 60 Hz video camcorders. Skin markers tracked the movements and defined the anatomical axes of antebrachial, metacarpal and proximal phalangeal segments. A JCS was established between the two segments comprising the carpal and fetlock joints to measure flexion/extension, internal/external rotation and adduction/abduction at each joint. The MPA model used two markers aligned on the long axis of each segment and measured flexion/extension angles projected onto the sagittal plane of the coordinate system and adduction/abduction angles projected onto the frontal plane of the coordinate system. Carpal and fetlock flexion/extension angles for the walk were similar for the JCS and MPA (peak absolute difference: carpal joint = 7 ± 4° and fetlock joint = 7 ± 2°), indicating that sagittal plane analysis using MPA is adequate when flexion and extension are the only measurements being made provided the horse's plane of motion is aligned with the plane of calibration. There were relatively larger differences in carpal and fetlock adduction/abduction angles measured using an MPA compared with a JCS. Peak absolute difference between the JCS and MPA adduction/abduction angles occurred at 53% of the stride for the carpus (17 ± 4°) and at 61% of the stride for the fetlock (123 ± 25°). Analysis of the reasons for these differences indicated that the accuracy of frontal plane analysis to measure adduction/abduction is limited by its inability to correct for out-of-plane rotations along the long axis of the segments comprising the joint.

Keywords

joint coordinate systemmulti-planar analysisequine kinematics
Type
Research Paper
Information
Comparative Exercise Physiology , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 43 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

1Back, W, Schamhardt, HC and Barneveld, A (1996). Are kinematics of the walk related to the locomotion of a warmblood horse at the trot? Veterinary Quarterly Supplement 18(2): S71–S76.Google Scholar
2Back, W, Schamhardt, HC and Barneveld, A (1997). Kinematic comparison of the leading and trailing fore- and hind limbs at the canter. Equine Veterinary Journal Supplement 23: 80–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Hodson, EF, Clayton, HM and Lanovaz, JL (2000). The forelimb in walking horses: 1. Kinematics and ground reaction forces. Equine Veterinary Journal 32: 287–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Hodson, EF, Clayton, HM and Lanovaz, JL (2001). The hindlimb in walking horses: 1. Kinematics and ground reaction forces. Equine Veterinary Journal 33: 38–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Nicodemus, MC and Booker, JE (2007). Forelimb and hindlimb kinematics of the jog and lope of the stock breed western pleasure horse. Equine Comparative and Exercise Physiology 4(2): 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Nicodemus, MC and Holt, KM (2006). Forelimb and hindlimb kinematics of the flat walking Tennessee Walking Horse yearling. Equine Comparative and Exercise Physiology 3(2): 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Herring, L, Thompson, KN and Jarret, S (1992). Defining normal three-dimensional kinematics of the lower forelimb in horses. Equine Veterinary Science 12(3): 172–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Back, W, Gerritsen, J, Ahne, I, Gouwerok, A, Ebell, P, Klarenbeck, A and de Koning, JJ (2000). The effect of laterally wedged shoes on the sagittal and transversal plane kinematics of the Shetland ponies. Fourth International Workshop on Animal Locomotion, pp. 50..Google Scholar
9Grood, ES and Suntay, WJ (1983). A joint coordinate system for the clinical description of three-dimensional motions: application to the knee. Journal of Biomechanics 105: 136–144.Google ScholarPubMed
10Chateau, H, Degueurce, C and Denoix, JM (2005). Three-dimensional kinematics of the equine distal forelimb: effects of a sharp turn at the walk. Equine Veterinary Journal 37(1): 12–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Heleski, C (1991). The application of three-dimensional kinematic methodology to the equine knee and ankle joints. Thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI..Google Scholar
12Lanovaz, JL, Khumsap, S, Clayton, HM, Stick, JA and Brown, J (2002). Three-dimensional kinematics of the tarsal joint at the trot. Equine Veterinary Journal Supplement 34: 308–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Clayton, HM, Daohang, S and Mullineaux, DR (2004). Three dimensional kinematics of carpus and fetlock at trot. Equine and Comparative Exercise Physiology 1(2): A7.Google Scholar
14Imus, B (1995). Heavenly Gaits: The Complete Guide to Gaited Riding Horses. New York: CrossOver Publications, pp. 11–24.Google Scholar
15Peruvian Horse Association of Canada (2006). Book of Peruvian Horse Showing, pp. 20–21, Alberta, Canada..Google Scholar
16van Weeren, PR, Bogert, AJ and Barneveld, A (1988). Quantification of skin displacement near the carpal, tarsal and fetlock joints of the walking horse. Equine Veterinary Journal 20(3): 203–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Nicodemus, MC, Lanovaz, JL, Corn, C and Clayton, HM (1999). The application of virtual markers to a joint coordinate system for equine three-dimensional motions. Proceedings of the 16th Equine Nutrition and Physiology Symposium. pp. 24–25..Google Scholar
18Soutas-Little, RW (1996). The use of virtual markers in human movement analysis. Gait and Posture 4: 176–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Abdel-Azis, YI and Karara, HM (1971). Direct linear transformation from computer coordinates into object coordinates in close-range photogrammetry. In: Proceedings of the ASPUI Symposium on Close-Range Photogrammetry. American Society of Photogrammetry Publications, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
20Winter, DA (1990). Kinetics: Forces and Moments of Force. In: Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement. 2nd edn.New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 75–102.Google Scholar
21Degueurce, C, Chateau, H, Pasqui-Boutard, V, Geiger, D and Denoix, JM (2000). Kinematics of the proximal interphalangeal joint in the horse. Fourth International Workshop on Animal Locomotion. pp. 43..Google Scholar
22Chateau, H, Degueurce, C, Jerbi, H, Crevier-Denoix, N, Pourcelot, P, Audigie, F, Pasqui-Boutard, V and Denoix, JM (2001). Normal three-dimensional behaviour of the metacarpophalangeal joint and the effect of uneven foot bearing. Equine Veterinary Journal Supplement 33: 84–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Degueurce, C, Chateau, H, Jerbi, H, Crevier-Denoix, N, Pourcelot, P, Audigie, F, Pasqui-Boutard, V, Geiger, D and Denoix, JM (2001). Three-dimensional kinematics of the proximal interphalangeal joint: effects of raising the heels or the toe. Equine Veterinary Journal Supplement 33: 79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Khumsap, S, Lanovaz, JL and Clayton, HM (2004). Verification of skin-based markers for 3D kinematic analysis of the equine tarsal joint. Equine Veterinary Journal 36: 655–658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Lanovaz, JL, Khumsap, S and Clayton, HM (2004). Quantification of three-dimensional skin displacement artifacts on the equine tibia and third metatarsus. Equine and Comparative Exercise Physiology 1(2): 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Khumsap, S, Lanovaz, JL and Clayton, HM (2004). 3D kinematic analysis of horses with tarsal synovitis. Equine Veterinary Journal 36: 659–663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Clayton, HM, Sha, D, Stick, JA and Mullineaux, DR (2004). Three-dimensional carpal kinematics of trotting horses. Equine Veterinary Journal 36(8): 671–676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Chateau, H, Degueurce, C and Denoix, JM (2004). Evaluation of three-dimensional kinematics of the distal portion of the forelimb in horses walking in a straight line. American Journal of Veterinary Research 65(4): 448–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar