Skip to Main Content
Table 5.

Comparison of forelimb and hindlimb forces associated with limbs in a turn (in body weight units)

Peak forceForelimbHindlimbSignificance (P<0.05)
L. catta     
    Ground Vertical 0.883±0.164 (36) 1.204±0.021 (64) HL>FL 
 Braking -0.228±0.108 (27) -0.169±0.198 (16) ns 
 Propulsive 0.065±0.084 (16) 0.381±0.254 (58) HL>FL 
 m—l 0.242±0.138 (33) 0.354±0.192 (62) HL>FL 
    Branch Vertical 0.467±0.124 (17) 0.921±0.185 (25) HL>FL 
 Braking -0.107±0.059 (14) -0.142±0.067 (8) ns 
 Propulsive 0.043±0.036 (6) 0.160±0.042 (14) HL>FL 
 m—l 0.105±0.050 (15) 0.252±0.043 (25) HL>FL 
E. patas, ground     
    Female Vertical 1.109±0.522 (18) 1.110±0.458 (12) ns 
 Braking -0.203±0.123 (16) -0.078±0.041 (10) FL>HL 
 Propulsive 0.068±0.068 (11) 0.152±0.113 (11) HL>FL 
 m—l 0.125±0.053 (18) 0.147±0.073 (12) ns 
    Male Vertical 0.587±0.109 (14) 0.868±0.193 (38) HL>FL 
 Braking -0.198±0.046 (14) -0.090±0.039 (32) FL>HL 
 Propulsive 0.047±0.040 (6) 0.126±0.059 (38) HL>FL 
 m—l 0.065±0.034 (14) 0.098±0.033 (38) HL>FL 
Peak forceForelimbHindlimbSignificance (P<0.05)
L. catta     
    Ground Vertical 0.883±0.164 (36) 1.204±0.021 (64) HL>FL 
 Braking -0.228±0.108 (27) -0.169±0.198 (16) ns 
 Propulsive 0.065±0.084 (16) 0.381±0.254 (58) HL>FL 
 m—l 0.242±0.138 (33) 0.354±0.192 (62) HL>FL 
    Branch Vertical 0.467±0.124 (17) 0.921±0.185 (25) HL>FL 
 Braking -0.107±0.059 (14) -0.142±0.067 (8) ns 
 Propulsive 0.043±0.036 (6) 0.160±0.042 (14) HL>FL 
 m—l 0.105±0.050 (15) 0.252±0.043 (25) HL>FL 
E. patas, ground     
    Female Vertical 1.109±0.522 (18) 1.110±0.458 (12) ns 
 Braking -0.203±0.123 (16) -0.078±0.041 (10) FL>HL 
 Propulsive 0.068±0.068 (11) 0.152±0.113 (11) HL>FL 
 m—l 0.125±0.053 (18) 0.147±0.073 (12) ns 
    Male Vertical 0.587±0.109 (14) 0.868±0.193 (38) HL>FL 
 Braking -0.198±0.046 (14) -0.090±0.039 (32) FL>HL 
 Propulsive 0.047±0.040 (6) 0.126±0.059 (38) HL>FL 
 m—l 0.065±0.034 (14) 0.098±0.033 (38) HL>FL 

Values are means ± s.d. (N).

Significant differences reported in the last column are based on ANOVAs;ns, not significant.

Medial and lateral peak forces were combined for these comparisons. Sample sizes are therefore larger than those in Tables 1 and 2.

m—l, mediolateral; FL, forelimb; HL, hindlimb.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal