PetCaseFinder

Peer-reviewed veterinary case report

How agility dogs handle the teeter obstacle in courses

By Pechette Markley, Arielle et al.·Published in Frontiers in veterinary science·2024·Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, United States·View original on PubMed

PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →

Original publication title: Variability in performance of agility dogs navigating a dynamic obstacle.

Species:
dog

Plain-English summary

A group of 20 agility dogs of different breeds and sizes were studied to see how they navigated the teeter, a moving obstacle in agility courses. The dogs took an average of 1.31 seconds to complete the teeter, with smaller dogs taking longer and having more footfalls than larger dogs. Some dogs stood still while the teeter moved, while others kept stepping. This research helps us understand how dogs use different strategies to handle dynamic obstacles, which could be important for preventing injuries during agility training.

People also search for: agility dog teeter performance · why is my dog slow on the teeter · dog agility training tips

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.

Find similar cases for your pet

PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.

Search related cases →

Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39698310/