Evaluation of variability in performance and paw placement patterns by dogs completing the dog walk obstacle in an agility competition

Juli K. DiMichele; Arielle Pechette Markley; Abigail Shoben; Nina R. Kieves

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0299592

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 8, 2023
8 Oct 2023 Author Response Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Major Revision - Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299592.r001
2 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Cord M. Brundage, Editor PONE-D-23-32065Evaluation of variability in performance by dogs completing the dog walk obstacle in agility competitionPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kieves, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process (included below). Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 16 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Cord M. Brundage, D.V.M., Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We notice that your supplementary tables are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: 1. Abstract: Please provide more information about the method! 2. Abstract: Did you compare the date statistically? Did you find significant differences? 3. Introduction: Please provide a little information about the motion analysis of canine with different situations (treadmill, unleashed, leashed) 4. Materials and methods: Why does not have camera on the left side? 5. Materials and methods: How did you detect the initial contact? 6. Materials and methods: How did you measure the height of the withers? 7. Materials and methods: Please provide more information about the statistics! 8. Table 1: p for differences? How did you determine? 9. Table 1: I recommend to move the columns All fogs before the columns O for differences? 10. Discussion: Please repeat the aim of the present research in the first paragraphs (before the hypothesis) 11. Conclusion: Please provide the main contribution, the novelty of the present study. Reviewer #2: Thank you for your manuscript on performance and paw placement pattern of agility dogs completing the dog walk obstacle. I think these types of studies are important as an initial assessment to help guide further kinetic and kinematic studies, as you suggest. Please find my comments for areas I would like clarification as well as some typographical errors I spotted: Title: I think the title could be made clearer by adding the phrase “and paw placement patterns” after the word “performance” and saying “in an agility competition” since this is looking at one specific competition/course and not across multiple courses or runs. Line 29-30: Word missing - “as well associated agility-related injuries.” Should read “as well as associated agility-related injuries.” Line 35: Missing the word “as” here again - “ as well risk of acute injuries while performing...” Line 110: Typo “Similarly, the first paw to contact each ramp each ramp was also recorded...” the phrase ‘each ramp’ is written twice. Results – can you please note how many total videos were analyzed? I am interested to know if the 296 attempts represents all dogs/videos or what number of dogs did not even attempt the obstacle (I see these numbers in the tables later but would be nice to see them in the text). I’d also be interested to know if those dogs that did not attempt the obstacle refused that specific obstacle and therefore that is why it was not attempted, or if there was a reason unrelated to the dog walk that this particular obstacle was not attempted. I would like to know how the remaining dogs approached the dog walk (as a reader I can guess that the remaining 4% of dogs took the obstacle at the wrong time and that 5% took it with the handler to the right side of the obstacle, but I’d appreciate the clarification, especially if this is not the correct assumption). Where these included in the statistical analysis? I ask because I wonder if the paw strike could be influenced by whether the dog walk was approached in the correct order (from the same orientation after the u-tunnel) and which side the handler was on, and suggest that perhaps these should not be included in the stats. I would suggest that the number of dogs in each height category be briefly discussed in the text of the results section as currently it is only available in the tables. Line 144: You mention that the down ramp initial contact could not always be observed in the video. For how many dogs was the down ramp fully observed? (I see this in Table 2 now, but I think it would be nice to include this in the text). Line 144-145: I am finding this sentence to be a little confusing. I think where I become a little confused by the wording is “...again there is a difference by...” specifically the word again, since what you next say is contradictory to your prior statement rather than in agreement (and thus the word ‘again’ is leading me to be a little confused). I think clarity could be improved by removing the word ‘again’ and starting the remainder of this sentence as a new sentence. I would consider an additional limitation that this is only looking at a single course. Different course designs (different obstacles before and after dog walk or different angles of entering the obstacle) could alter paw placement patterns and speed of obstacle completion. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Christina Montalbano ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299592.r002
Revision 1
26 Jan 2024 Author Response Reviewer #1: 1. Abstract: Please provide more information about the method! Author Response: We have added some clarification to the abstract to indicate that this was an online video review to clarify the methodology. The primary statistical analysis was descriptive, so we have not specifically included that in the abstract. However, please let us know if there are additional details of our methods that should be included in the abstract. (Lines 16-19) 2. Abstract: Did you compare the date statistically? Did you find significant differences? Author Response: We assume this comment refers to the comparisons between height classes referenced in the abstract. As noted in the text of our methods, our primary objective of this study was descriptive, so our results in the abstract reflect this descriptive goal. We have added the word “qualitatively” to indicate this in the abstract. (Line 19) 3. Introduction: Please provide a little information about the motion analysis of canine with different situations (treadmill, unleashed, leashed) Author Response: The authors are unsure what additional information the reviewer feels would be important to include in the introduction regarding motion analysis. If you could clarify the authors would be happy to consider amending the introduction in future versions of the manuscript. 4. Materials and methods: Why does not have camera on the left side? Author Response: Thank you for this question. This study was done using a recording of the event created by 4LeggedFlix. We did not select the camera placement and utilized the one view that was available for this study. We have added clarification of this point to the text. (Lines 94-95) 5. Materials and methods: How did you detect the initial contact? Author Response: Initial contact with the obstacle was observed by video review while watching the video at reduced speed. We have added clarification to the text regarding this. (Line 100) 6. Materials and methods: How did you measure the height of the withers? Author Response: The height of the withers was inferred from the dog’s jump height class measured and provided by the UKI program directory that was available online. We have clarified this point in the text. (Lines 128-130) 7. Materials and methods: Please provide more information about the statistics! Author Response: We have added additional clarification of how p for difference was determined for the time variables in table 1 (lines 137-139). We otherwise believe the description of the statistics used is complete. 8. Table 1: p for differences? How did you determine? Author Response: These were multivariate Wald tests following linear regression with robust standard errors. This has been clarified in the methods. (Lines 137-139) 9. Table 1: I recommend to move the columns All fogs before the columns O for differences? Author Response: Thank you for this suggestion. Based on this suggestion, we have moved the “all dogs” to the first column for readability. 10. Discussion: Please repeat the aim of the present research in the first paragraphs (before the hypothesis) Author Response: Thank you for the suggestion. A sentence was added to the discussion to clarify the aim of the study. (Lines 234-235) 11. Conclusion: Please provide the main contribution, the novelty of the present study. Author Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added text to the conclusion to provide the main contribution and importance of the study. (Lines 350-353) Reviewer #2: Thank you for your manuscript on performance and paw placement pattern of agility dogs completing the dog walk obstacle. I think these types of studies are important as an initial assessment to help guide further kinetic and kinematic studies, as you suggest. Please find my comments for areas I would like clarification as well as some typographical errors I spotted: Title: I think the title could be made clearer by adding the phrase “and paw placement patterns” after the word “performance” and saying “in an agility competition” since this is looking at one specific competition/course and not across multiple courses or runs. Author Response: Thank you for the suggestion, this change has been made. Line 29-30: Word missing - “as well associated agility-related injuries.” Should read “as well as associated agility-related injuries.” Author Response: Thank you for the careful read and noticing this error. This has been corrected. (Line 30) Line 35: Missing the word “as” here again - “ as well risk of acute injuries while performing...” Author Response: Thank you for noticing this error, it has been corrected. (Line 36) Line 110: Typo “Similarly, the first paw to contact each ramp each ramp was also recorded...” the phrase ‘each ramp’ is written twice. Author Response: Thank you for noticing this error, it has been corrected. (Line 112) Results – can you please note how many total videos were analyzed? I am interested to know if the 296 attempts represents all dogs/videos or what number of dogs did not even attempt the obstacle (I see these numbers in the tables later but would be nice to see them in the text). I’d also be interested to know if those dogs that did not attempt the obstacle refused that specific obstacle and therefore that is why it was not attempted, or if there was a reason unrelated to the dog walk that this particular obstacle was not attempted. Author Response: Thank you for these thoughtful comments. All videoed runs of the course were reviewed; however, we did not specifically capture if a dog started the course, but did not attempt the dog walk obstacle. We believe this was rare, but do not have the exact data to provide. The 296 represents all dogs who attempted the course and also attempted the dog walk obstacle (defined as putting at least one paw on the obstacle). We have reworded the first line of the results to help clarify. (Lines 153-154) I would like to know how the remaining dogs approached the dog walk (as a reader I can guess that the remaining 4% of dogs took the obstacle at the wrong time and that 5% took it with the handler to the right side of the obstacle, but I’d appreciate the clarification, especially if this is not the correct assumption). Where these included in the statistical analysis? I ask because I wonder if the paw strike could be influenced by whether the dog walk was approached in the correct order (from the same orientation after the u-tunnel) and which side the handler was on, and suggest that perhaps these should not be included in the stats. Author Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added the information about approaching the dog walk in flow and explicitly about handler side to the results (lines 155-157). We agree that paw strike could be influenced by approach (although here all but two dogs took the u-shaped tunnel first) and by handler side. However, our goal was to describe the patterns observed completing the obstacle within a course; not specifically to describe patterns observed with a prescribed approach and prescribed handler side so our primary analysis included all dogs. We note that restricting the analysis to dogs who took the dog walk in flow and with the handler on the left (n=270) showed very similar patterns to the full sample. We have added to the discussion the idea that handler position and approach may impact paw strike patterns and completion times. (Lines 335-338) I would suggest that the number of dogs in each height category be briefly discussed in the text of the results section as currently it is only available in the tables. Author Response: We have added text to the results to include this information. (Lines 161-163) Line 144: You mention that the down ramp initial contact could not always be observed in the video. For how many dogs was the down ramp fully observed? (I see this in Table 2 now, but I think it would be nice to include this in the text). Author Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added the number of dogs for whom the down ramp initial contact was observed (262) to the text. (Line 169) Line 144-145: I am finding this sentence to be a little confusing. I think where I become a little confused by the wording is “...again there is a difference by...” specifically the word again, since what you next say is contradictory to your prior statement rather than in agreement (and thus the word ‘again’ is leading me to be a little confused). I think clarity could be improved by removing the word ‘again’ and starting the remainder of this sentence as a new sentence. Author Response: Thank you for the suggestion. A new sentence was created to make this clearer. (Lines 169-170) I would consider an additional limitation that this is only looking at a single course. Different course designs (different obstacles before and after dog walk or different angles of entering the obstacle) could alter paw placement patterns and speed of obstacle completion. Author Response: Thank you for the suggestion. A statement was added to the discussion regarding this limitation. (Lines 334-336) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Author Response Final.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299592.r003
13 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Cord M. Brundage, Editor Evaluation of variability in performance and paw placement patterns by dogs completing the dog walk obstacle in an agility competition PONE-D-23-32065R1 Dear Dr. Kieves, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Cord M. Brundage, D.V.M., Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Thank you for your answer, the correction, extension is enough for me. I recommend the corrected version for acceptance. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Christina Montalbano ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299592.r004
Formally Accepted
26 Feb 2024 Acceptance Letter - Cord M. Brundage, Editor PONE-D-23-32065R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kieves, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Cord M. Brundage Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299592.r005

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .