Analyze Diet
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences2024; doi: 10.1111/nyas.15271

The rhythm of horse gaits.

Abstract: What makes animal gaits so audibly rhythmic? To answer this question, we recorded the footfall sound of 19 horses and quantified the rhythmic differences in the temporal structure of three natural gaits: walk, trot, and canter. Our analyses show that each gait displays a strikingly specific rhythmic pattern and that all gaits are organized according to small-integer ratios, those found when adjacent temporal intervals are related by a mathematically simple relationship of integer numbers. Walk and trot exhibit an isochronous structure (1:1)-similar to a ticking clock-while canter is characterized by three small-integer ratios (1:1, 1:2, 2:1). While walk and trot both show isochrony, trot has a slower tempo and is more precise and accurate, like a metronome. Our results quantitatively discriminate horse gaits based on rhythm, revealing striking commonalities with human music and some animal communicative signals. Gait and vocal rhythmicity share key features, and the former likely predates the latter; we suggest this supports gait-based hypotheses for the evolution of rhythm. Specifically, the perception of locomotor rhythmicity may have evolved in different species under pressure for predator recognition and mate selection; it may have been later exapted for rhythmic vocal communication.
Publication Date: 2024-12-28 PubMed ID: 39731731DOI: 10.1111/nyas.15271Google 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.
  • Journal Article

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.

This research study analyzes the rhythmic footfall sounds of horses’ natural gaits to uncover distinct rhythmic patterns and explore the evolution of rhythm in animal communication.

Research Methods and Findings

  • The researchers captured the footfall sound of 19 horses to identify and quantify the rhythmic differences in their natural gaits: walk, trot, and canter.
  • Analysis showed each gait presents a notable specific rhythmic pattern, all organized according to small-integer ratios; these integers establish a simple mathematical relationship between temporal intervals of the gait.
  • The gaits walk and trot demonstrate an identical and consistent rhythmic structure (1:1), similar to the repetitive ticking of a clock. On the other hand, the canter gait featured three small-integer ratios (1:1, 1:2, 2:1).
  • Moreover, while both the walk and trot gaits are syncopated, the trot gait has a slower tempo and was found to be more accurate and precise, akin to a metronome.

Significance and Implications

  • The findings not only allow discrimination between horse gaits based on their distinct rhythms, but also establish a remarkable similarity between these rhythms and elements of human music and certain animal communication signals.
  • The research also explores evolutionary theories, suggesting that the rhythmic patterns found in animals’ gaits may predate those found in their vocal communication.
  • Furthermore, the study hypothesizes that rhythm perception in a gait could have evolved in different species under environmental pressures, such as predator recognition or mate selection. This rhythmic ability might have eventually been adapted for vocal rhythmic communication.

The findings contribute valuable insights into the study of animal behavior, communication, and evolutionary processes.

Cite This Article

APA
Laffi L, Raimondi T, Ferrante C, Pagliara E, Bertuglia A, Briefer EF, Gamba M, Ravignani A. (2024). The rhythm of horse gaits. Ann N Y Acad Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15271

Publication

ISSN: 1749-6632
NlmUniqueID: 7506858
Country: United States
Language: English

Researcher Affiliations

Laffi, Lia
  • Department of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
  • Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
  • Fondazione ZOOM, Cumiana, Turin, Italy.
Raimondi, Teresa
  • Department of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Ferrante, Carola
  • Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, Grugliasco, Italy.
Pagliara, Eleonora
  • Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, Grugliasco, Italy.
Bertuglia, Andrea
  • Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, Grugliasco, Italy.
Briefer, Elodie Floriane
  • Behavioural Ecology Group, Section for Ecology and Evolution, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Gamba, Marco
  • Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Ravignani, Andrea
  • Department of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
  • Center for Music in the Brain, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University & The Royal Academy of Music Aarhus/Aalborg, Aarhus, Denmark.

Grant Funding

  • 101041885 / HORIZON EUROPE European Research Council
  • RGP0019/2022 / Human Frontier Science Program
  • DNRF117 / Danmarks Grundforskningsfond

References

This article includes 33 references
  1. Ravignani A, Madison G. The paradox of isochrony in the evolution of human rhythm. Frontiers in Psychology 8, 1820.
    doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01820google scholar: lookup
  2. Larsson M, Richter J, Ravignani A. Bipedal steps in the development of rhythmic behavior in humans. Music & Science 2, 1–14.
    doi: 10.1177/2059204319892617google scholar: lookup
  3. Ijspeert AJ. Central pattern generators for locomotion control in animals and robots: A review. Neural Networks 21, 642–653.
  4. Laffi L, Bigand F, Peham C, Novembre G, Gamba M, Ravignani A. Rhythmic categories in horse gait kinematics. Journal of Anatomy .
  5. Kotz SA, Ravignani A, Fitch WT. The evolution of rhythm processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 22, 896–910.
  6. Bass AH, Chagnaud BP. Shared developmental and evolutionary origins for neural basis of vocal–acoustic and pectoral–gestural signaling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109, 10677–10684.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1201886109google scholar: lookup
  7. Larsson M. Incidental sounds of locomotion in animal cognition. Animal Cognition 15, 1–13.
  8. Larsson M. Self‐generated sounds of locomotion and ventilation and the evolution of human rhythmic abilities. Animal Cognition 17, 1–14.
  9. Qirko H. Pace setting as an adaptive precursor of rhythmic musicality. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1533, 5–15.
    doi: 10.1111/nyas.15120google scholar: lookup
  10. Raimondi T, Ravignani A. Rhythm in the womb: A broad comparative approach to auditory/motor entrainment. Current Anthropology .
  11. Jacoby N, Polak R, Grahn JA, Cameron DJ, Lee KM, Godoy R, Undurraga EA, Huanca T, Thalwitzer T, Doumbia N, Goldberg D, Margulis EH, Wong PCM, Jure L, Rocamora M, Fujii S, Savage PE, Ajimi J, Konno R, Mcdermott JH. Commonality and variation in mental representations of music revealed by a cross‐cultural comparison of rhythm priors in 15 countries. Nature Human Behaviour 8(5), 846–877.
  12. De Gregorio C, Valente D, Raimondi T, Torti V, Miaretsoa L, Friard O, Giacoma C, Ravignani A, Gamba M. Categorical rhythms in a singing primate. Current Biology 31(20), R1379–R1380.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2021.09.032google scholar: lookup
  13. Hildebrand M. The quadrupedal gaits of vertebrates. Bioscience 39, 766–775.
    doi: 10.2307/1311182google scholar: lookup
  14. Roeske TC, Tchernichovski O, Poeppel D, Jacoby N. Categorical rhythms are shared between songbirds and humans. Current Biology 30(18), 3544–3555.e6.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2020.06.072google scholar: lookup
  15. Hildebrand M. Symmetrical gaits of horses. .
  16. Alexander RM. The gaits of bipedal and quadrupedal animals. International Journal of Robotics Research 3, 49–59.
  17. Boersma P. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International 5(9/10), 341–345.
  18. Van Rossum G, Drake Jr FL. Python reference manual. Amsterdam: Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica.
  19. McInnes L, Healy J, Melville J. UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction. .
    doi: 10.48550/arxiv.1802.03426google scholar: lookup
  20. Student. The probable error of a mean. Biometrika 6, 1.
    doi: 10.2307/2331554google scholar: lookup
  21. Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52, 591.
    doi: 10.2307/2333709google scholar: lookup
  22. Magnusson A, Skaug H, Nielsen A. Package ‘glmmTMB’. R Package Version 0.2.0 .
  23. Lüdecke D, Ben‐Shachar M, Patil I, Waggoner P, Makowski D. performance: An R package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models. Journal of Open Source Software 6, 3139.
    doi: 10.21105/joss.03139google scholar: lookup
  24. Lenth RV, Buerkner P, Giné‐Vázquez I, Herve M, Jung M, Love J, Miguez F. Estimated marginal means, aka least‐squares means. .
  25. Delignette‐Muller M‐L, Dutang C, Pouillot R. Package ‘fitdistrplus’. Help to fit of a parametric distribution to non‐censored or censored data. .
  26. Geiger JT, Kneißl M, Schuller BW, Rigoll G. Acoustic gait‐based person identification using hidden Markov models. Proceedings of the 2014 Workshop on Mapping Personality Traits Challenge and Workshop pp. 25–30.
    doi: 10.1145/2668024.2668027google scholar: lookup
  27. Granatosky MC, Bryce CM, Hanna J, Fitzsimons A, Laird MF, Stilson K, Wall CE, Ross CF. Inter‐stride variability triggers gait transitions in mammals and birds. Proceedings. Biological Sciences 285(1893), 20181766.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2018.1766google scholar: lookup
  28. Janczarek I, Wiśniewska A, Chruszczewski MH, Tkaczyk E, Górecka‐Bruzda A. Social behaviour of horses in response to vocalisations of predators. Animals 10(12), 2331.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10122331google scholar: lookup
  29. Maeda T, Sueur C, Hirata S, Yamamoto S. Behavioural synchronization in a multilevel society of feral horses. PLoS ONE 16(10), e0258944.
  30. De Gregorio C, Maiolini M, Raimondi T, Carugati F, Miaretsoa L, Valente D, Torti V, Giacoma C, Ravignani A, Gamba M. Isochrony as ancestral condition to call and song in a primate. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1537(1), 41–50.
    doi: 10.1111/nyas.15151google scholar: lookup
  31. Golubitsky M, Stewart I, Buono P‐L, Collins JJ. Symmetry in locomotor central pattern generators and animal gaits. Nature 401(6754), 693–695.
    doi: 10.1038/44416google scholar: lookup
  32. Dotov D, Trainor LJ. Cross‐frequency coupling explains the preference for simple ratios in rhythmic behaviour and the relative stability across non‐synchronous patterns. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 376, 20200333.
    doi: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0333google scholar: lookup
  33. Hoffmann CP, Bardy BG. Dynamics of the locomotor–respiratory coupling at different frequencies. Experimental Brain Research 233, 1551–1561.

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.