FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026; 26(9); 2743; doi: 10.3390/s26092743

Comparison Between Inertial Sensor and Video-Based Detection of Spatiotemporal Limb Movement Parameters During Equine Swimming.

Abstract: Equine swimming is increasingly used for injury prevention and rehabilitation, but objective analysis of movement during swimming remains limited compared to land-based locomotion. Spatiotemporal parameters are essential for evaluating therapeutic outcomes, yet capturing these parameters is technically challenging due to difficulties in observing limb motion in water. Inertial sensors, already widely applied in equine science, offer a promising solution for measuring swimming kinematics objectively. The objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability of inertial sensors placed on equine distal limbs in detecting key spatiotemporal events during swimming by comparing it with video-based detection made by veterinarians. For the duration of the hindlimb swimming cycle, 24 data values were analysed and showed an "excellent" agreement, with an intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.904-0.983, and Bland-Altmann analysis showed an upper limit of agreement of 50 ms (95% CI: 70 ms, 30 ms) and lower one of -60 ms (95% CI: -40 ms, -80 ms). The estimates of the "swimming" duty factor of the hindlimb (n = 24) demonstrated "moderate" to "excellent" with intraclass correlation of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.625-0.920) and limits of agreement of 4.39% (95% CI: 6.21%, 2.53%) and -5.28% (95% CI: -3.42%, -7.14%). The results of the forelimb were mixed, suggesting that the cycle duration and "swimming" duty factor parameters determined for this limb should be used with caution. Overall, the findings confirm that inertial sensors, particularly on the hindlimbs, provide reliable spatiotemporal measurements and are well suited for studying equine swimming.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2026-04-28 PubMed ID: 42122465PubMed Central: PMC13165611DOI: 10.3390/s26092743Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Comparative Study

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

Overview

  • This study compared the accuracy of inertial sensors and video-based analysis in detecting limb movement parameters during horse swimming.
  • It found that inertial sensors on the horse’s hindlimbs provide reliable measurements of swimming motion, while forelimb measurements were less consistent.

Background and Importance

  • Equine swimming is used increasingly for injury prevention and rehabilitation.
  • Objective analysis of limb movement during swimming is limited compared to land locomotion, primarily due to difficulty observing limb motion underwater.
  • Spatiotemporal parameters (timing and spatial characteristics of limb movements) are critical for evaluating therapeutic outcomes in equine rehabilitation.
  • Inertial sensors, which measure motion dynamics, are already widely applied in equine science on land and present a promising method for measuring swimming kinematics objectively.

Research Objective

  • To assess how well inertial sensors placed on the distal limbs (far end parts like lower legs) of horses during swimming detect key spatiotemporal events compared to traditional video-based detection by veterinarians.
  • To evaluate the reliability and agreement between these two measurement methods.

Methodology

  • Placement of inertial sensors on horses’ distal limbs during swimming sessions.
  • Simultaneous video recording of hindlimb and forelimb movements analyzed by veterinarians.
  • Analysis focused on detecting “swimming” cycle durations and duty factors (percentage of time a limb is in contact/moving during the swimming cycle).
  • Data points analyzed: 24 hindlimb swimming cycles.
  • Statistical tools used included intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to assess agreement reliability and Bland-Altman analysis to evaluate measurement differences and limits of agreement between methods.

Key Findings

  • Hindlimb Measurement Agreement:
    • Excellent agreement observed between inertial sensors and video detection for hindlimb swimming cycle duration.
    • ICC = 0.96 indicating very high reliability.
    • Bland-Altman limits of agreement ranged from roughly -60 ms to +50 ms, indicating close correspondence in timing measurements.
  • Hindlimb Duty Factor:
    • Demonstrated moderate to excellent agreement with ICC = 0.82.
    • Limits of agreement ranged from about -5.3% to +4.4%, showing reasonably consistent estimates between methods.
  • Forelimb Results:
    • Mixed results suggested that cycle duration and duty factor measurements for forelimbs were less reliable.
    • These parameters for forelimbs should be interpreted cautiously.

Conclusions and Implications

  • Inertial sensors placed on the hindlimbs provide reliable, objective spatiotemporal data for equine swimming motion.
  • This supports the use of inertial monitoring technology as a practical tool for swimming-based rehabilitation and injury prevention, enhancing current clinical and research capabilities.
  • Forelimb sensor data require further validation or improvement before confident use.
  • Overall, inertial sensors facilitate quantitative analysis of equine swimming, a task previously hindered by challenges in underwater visual observation.

Cite This Article

APA
Marin F, Giraudet C, Gaulmin P, Moiroud C, De Azevedo E, Hatrisse C, Ben Mansour K, Martin P, Audigie F, Chateau H. (2026). Comparison Between Inertial Sensor and Video-Based Detection of Spatiotemporal Limb Movement Parameters During Equine Swimming. Sensors (Basel), 26(9), 2743. https://doi.org/10.3390/s26092743

Publication

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1424-8220
NlmUniqueID: 101204366
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 26
Issue: 9
PII: 2743

Researcher Affiliations

Marin, Frederic
  • Department of Movement Science for Prevention and Rehabilitation, Institute of Human Movement Science and Health, Chemnitz University of Technology, D-09111 Chemnitz, Germany.
  • Laboratoire de BioMécanique et BioIngénierie (UMR CNRS 7338), Université de Technologie de Compiègne (UTC), F-60200 Compiègne, France.
Giraudet, Chloé
  • Laboratoire de BioMécanique et BioIngénierie (UMR CNRS 7338), Université de Technologie de Compiègne (UTC), F-60200 Compiègne, France.
Gaulmin, Pauline
  • Unit Diseases of the Athlete Horse: Pathophysiology, Prevention, Management (ACAP3), Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d'Alfort, F-14430 Goustranville, France.
Moiroud, Claire
  • Unit Diseases of the Athlete Horse: Pathophysiology, Prevention, Management (ACAP3), Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d'Alfort, F-14430 Goustranville, France.
De Azevedo, Emeline
  • Unit Diseases of the Athlete Horse: Pathophysiology, Prevention, Management (ACAP3), Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d'Alfort, F-14430 Goustranville, France.
Hatrisse, Chloé
  • Laboratoire de Biomécanique et Mécanique des Chocs (LBMC) UMR_T 9406, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, F-69675 Bron Cedex, France.
Ben Mansour, Khalil
  • Laboratoire de BioMécanique et BioIngénierie (UMR CNRS 7338), Université de Technologie de Compiègne (UTC), F-60200 Compiègne, France.
Martin, Pauline
  • LIM France, 24300 Nontron, France.
Audigie, Fabrice
  • Unit Diseases of the Athlete Horse: Pathophysiology, Prevention, Management (ACAP3), Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d'Alfort, F-14430 Goustranville, France.
Chateau, Henry
  • Unit Diseases of the Athlete Horse: Pathophysiology, Prevention, Management (ACAP3), Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d'Alfort, F-14430 Goustranville, France.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Swimming / physiology
  • Horses / physiology
  • Biomechanical Phenomena / physiology
  • Video Recording / methods
  • Hindlimb / physiology
  • Movement / physiology

Grant Funding

  • ANR-20-CE19-0016 / Agence Nationale de la Recherche

Conflict of Interest Statement

Author Pauline Martin was employed by the company LIM France. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 27 references
  1. Muñoz A, Becero M, Saitua A, Argüelles D, De Medina AS, Castejón-Riber C. Exercise in the Water: Should We Incorporate It into Training and Rehabilitation Programs for the Sport Horse?. Atti Della Accad. Peloritana Dei Pericolanti-Cl. Di Sci. Med.-Biol. 2019;107:1–11.
    doi: 10.6092/1828-6550/APMB.107.2.2019.SD3google scholar: lookup
  2. Steel C, Bond B, Morrice-West A. Survey of Trainers on the Use of Swimming Exercise for Standardbred Racehorses in Australia. Aust. Vet. J. 2019;97:61–67.
    doi: 10.1111/avj.12786pubmed: 30809812google scholar: lookup
  3. Imahara T. Swimming Pool for Horses. Exp. Rep. Equine Health Lab. 1976;13:79–82.
    doi: 10.11535/jes1961.1976.79google scholar: lookup
  4. Gaulmin P, Marin F, Moiroud C, Beaumont A, Jacquet S, De Azevedo E, Martin P, Audigié F, Chateau H, Giraudet C. Description and Analysis of Horse Swimming Strategies in a U-Shaped Pool. Animals 2025;15:195.
    doi: 10.3390/ani15020195pmc: PMC11758662pubmed: 39858195google scholar: lookup
  5. Toussain H, Hollande AP, Berg C, Vorontsov A. Biomechanics of Swimming. Exercise and Sport Science Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; Philadelphia, PA, USA: 2000; pp. 639–660.
  6. Fish FE. Transitions from Drag-Based to Lift-Based Propulsion in Mammalian Swimming. Am. Zool. 1996;36:628–641.
    doi: 10.1093/icb/36.6.628google scholar: lookup
  7. Back W, Clayton HM. Equine Locomotion. 2nd ed. Elsevier Health Sciences UK; London, UK: 2013.
  8. Denoix J-M. Essentials in Clinical Anatomy of the Equine Locomotor System. CRC Press; Boca Raton, FL, USA: 2019.
  9. Giraudet C, Moiroud C, Beaumont A, Gaulmin P, Hatrisse C, Azevedo E, Denoix J-M, Ben Mansour K, Martin P, Audigié F. Development of a Methodology for Low-Cost 3D Underwater Motion Capture: Application to the Biomechanics of Horse Swimming. Sensors 2023;23:8832.
    doi: 10.3390/s23218832pmc: PMC10647488pubmed: 37960531google scholar: lookup
  10. Santosuosso E, Leguillette R, Vinardell T, Filho S, Massie S, McCrae P, Johnson S, Rolian C, David F. Kinematic Analysis During Straight Line Free Swimming in Horses: Part 1-Forelimbs. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021;8:752375.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.752375pmc: PMC8553013pubmed: 34722709google scholar: lookup
  11. Marin F. Human and Animal Motion Tracking Using Inertial Sensors. Sensors 2020;20:6074.
    doi: 10.3390/s20216074pmc: PMC7662986pubmed: 33114597google scholar: lookup
  12. Crecan CM, Peștean CP. Inertial Sensor Technologies—Their Role in Equine Gait Analysis, a Review. Sensors 2023;23:6301.
    doi: 10.3390/s23146301pmc: PMC10386433pubmed: 37514599google scholar: lookup
  13. Fercher C, Bartsch J, Kluge S, Schneider F, Liedtke AM, Schleichardt A, Ueberschär O. Applying Multi-Purpose Commercial Inertial Sensors for Monitoring Equine Locomotion in Equestrian Training. Sensors 2024;24:8170.
    doi: 10.3390/s24248170pmc: PMC11680087pubmed: 39771905google scholar: lookup
  14. Sapone M, Martin P, Ben Mansour K, Chateau H, Marin F. The Protraction and Retraction Angles of Horse Limbs: An Estimation during Trotting Using Inertial Sensors. Sensors 2021;21:3792.
    doi: 10.3390/s21113792pmc: PMC8199102pubmed: 34070859google scholar: lookup
  15. Ekdahl M, Loewen A, Erdman A, Sahin S, Ulman S. Inertial Measurement Unit Sensor-to-Segment Calibration Comparison for Sport-Specific Motion Analysis. Sensors 2023;23:7987.
    doi: 10.3390/s23187987pmc: PMC10534374pubmed: 37766040google scholar: lookup
  16. Lilliefors HW. On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Normality with Mean and Variance Unknown. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1967;62:399–402.
    doi: 10.1080/01621459.1967.10482916google scholar: lookup
  17. Mokkink LB, De Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, Terwee CB. COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist for Systematic Reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Qual. Life Res. 2018;27:1171–1179.
    doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4pmc: PMC5891552pubmed: 29260445google scholar: lookup
  18. Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J. Chiropr. Med. 2016;15:155–163.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012pmc: PMC4913118pubmed: 27330520google scholar: lookup
  19. Martin Bland J, Altman DG. Statistical Methods for Assessing Agreement between Two Methods of Mlinical Measurement. Lancet 1986;327:307–310.
    doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8pubmed: 2868172google scholar: lookup
  20. Haghayegh S, Kang H-A, Khoshnevis S, Smolensky MH, Diller KR. A Comprehensive Guideline for Bland–Altman and Intra Class Correlation Calculations to Properly Compare Two Methods of Measurement and Interpret Findings. Physiol. Meas. 2020;41:055012.
    doi: 10.1088/1361-6579/ab86d6pubmed: 32252039google scholar: lookup
  21. Breusch TS, Pagan AR. A Simple Test for Heteroscedasticity and Random Coefficient Variation. Econometrica 1979;47:1287.
    doi: 10.2307/1911963google scholar: lookup
  22. Van Weeren PR, Van Den Bogert AJ, Barneveld A, Hartman W, Kersjes AW. The Role of the Reciprocal Apparatus in the Hind Limb of the Horse Investigated by a Modified CODA-3 Opto-electronic Kinematic Analysis System. Equine Vet. J. 1990;22:95–100.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1990.tb04744.xpubmed: 9259816google scholar: lookup
  23. Van Weeren PR, Jansen MO, Van Den Bogert AJ, Barneveld A. A Kinematic and Strain Gauge Study of the Reciprocal Apparatus in the Equine Hind Limb. J. Biomech. 1992;25:1291–1301.
    doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(92)90284-8pubmed: 1400530google scholar: lookup
  24. Robertson DGE, Caldwell GE, Hamill J, Kamen G, Whittlesey SN. Research Methods in Biomechanics. 2nd ed. Human Kinetics; Champaign, IL, USA: 2014.
  25. Montenij LJ, Buhre WF, Jansen JR, Kruitwagen CL, De Waal EE. Methodology of Method Comparison Studies Evaluating the Validity of Cardiac Output Monitors: A Stepwise Approach and Checklist. Br. J. Anaesth. 2016;116:750–758.
    doi: 10.1093/bja/aew094pubmed: 27199309google scholar: lookup
  26. Gertsbakh I. Measurement Theory for Engineers. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: 2003.
  27. Menditto A, Patriarca M, Magnusson B. Understanding the Meaning of Accuracy, Trueness and Precision. Accredit. Qual. Assur. 2007;12:45–47.
    doi: 10.1007/s00769-006-0191-zgoogle scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 104,750 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.