Abstract: Ziel der Studie war die Beschreibung der motorischen Lateralität („Schiefe“) gesunder adulter Pferde. Hierzu wurden 14 lahmfreie Pferde (10 Warmblüter, 4 Quarter Horses) auf dem Laufband in Schritt und Trab auf individuelle Abweichungen von der symmetri-schen Bewegung hinsichtlich Abstellung der Hinterhand, Wirbelsäulenform (Biegung), Vor- und Rückführung sowie Belastung von Vorder- und Hintergliedmaßen jeweils simul-tan hochfrequenzkinematographisch und kinetisch mittels resistiver Hufdrucksensoren untersucht. Zusätzlich wurden bevorzugte Abstellung und Biegung sowie Galopppräfe-renz klinisch bzw. reiterlich beurteilt, das Vorliegen einer Weideschrittpräferenz unter-sucht und Freilaufversuche (bevorzugte Abbiegerichtung, Ausweichrichtung um ein Hin-dernis, Galoppräferenz) durchgeführt. Keines der Pferde zeigte Symmetrie über alle Merkmale; zwar wurde bei jedem Merkmal für einzelne Probanden Symmetrie festgestellt, mit Ausnahme des Galopp-Freilaufver-suchs trat Asymmetrie jedoch häufiger auf. 12 Probanden zeigten in der Bewegungsana-lyse eine signifikante seitliche Abstellung (8x rechts (R), 4x links (L), mittlere seitliche Abweichung im Schritt 1,22°±1,09°, im Trab 1,05°±1,03°), 10 eine bevorzugte Biegung (9x L, 1x R), 13 signifikante Asymmetrien der Gliedmaßenvor- bzw. -rückführung und 12 eine signifikante asymmetrische Gliedmaßenbelastung für die normalisierte Spitzenkraft (PFN, peak force) bzw. den Impuls der Belastung (IN) an mindestens einem Beinpaar (alle Merkmale individuell wiederholbar). Linksabgestellte Pferde führten in beiden Gang-arten das rechte Hinterbein signifikant weiter zurück als nach rechts abgestellte Pferde, die tendenziell eher das linke Hinterbein weiter zurückführten. – Die auf dem Laufband festgestellten Asymmetrien traten in beiden Gangarten auf, aber nicht immer überein-stimmend, wobei die Richtung der bevorzugten Abstellung und ebenso der bevorzugten Biegung beim einzelnen Pferd in Schritt und Trab nie gegensätzlich waren. Jeder dieser beiden Parameter wurde daher für das einzelne Pferd über beide Gangarten zusammen-gefasst. Die Richtung von Abstellung und Biegung waren voneinander unabhängig, so-dass die Bewegungsmuster Abstellung ohne Biegung, Biegung ohne Abstellung, Abstel-lung mit Biegung in Laufrichtung (Travers) sowie Abstellung mit Biegung entgegen der Laufrichtung (Schulterherein) vorkamen. Kein Pferd war in beiden Merkmalen symmet-risch; für manche Pferde war neben der einfachen Biegung auch eine S-Form der Wir-belsäule signifikant. Die Belastungssymmetrie der Gliedmaßen war in beiden Gangarten von der Abstellung und der Biegung unabhängig, es gab aber Hinweise auf Zusammen-hänge zwischen bestimmten Kombinationen von Abstellung und Biegung einerseits und der Existenz einer Belastungsasymmetrie der Vorderbeine im Trab andererseits (unge-bogen mit Abstellung laufende und im Schulterherein laufende Pferde belasteten i.d.R. asymmetrisch).
8 Pferde wiesen eine signifikante Weideschrittpräferenz auf (5x L, 3x R), die bei ebenso vorhandener seitlicher Abstellung signifkant häufiger auf der der Abstellung abgewandten Seite auftrat. Sie wies keinen Zusammenhang mit der Rückführung der Hinterbeine im Schritt oder im Trab auf. Das Auftreten einer Weideschrittpräferenz war signifikant vom durch Abstellung und Biegung bestimmten Bewegungsmuster abhängig (Auftreten bei Abstellung ohne Biegung und bei Schulterherein, nicht bei Travers oder Biegung ohne Abstellung). Zudem zeigt die Präferenz der Pferde im Weideschritt eine starke Überein-stimmung mit der Belastungssymmetrie der Vorderbeine im Trab (bevorzugt vorgestelltes Bein wird mehr belastet (IN); symmetrische Belastung bei fehlender Präferenz). Im Hindernisversuch hatten 12 von 13 getesteten Probanden eine signifikant bevorzugte Ausweichrichtung (5x L, 7x R); diese war unabhängig von der gemessenen Wirbelsäulenform, lag aber bei Pferden mit seitlicher Abstellung überwiegend auf der Seite der gemessenen Abstellung. Im Abbiegeversuch zeigten 6 von 12 getesteten Probanden eine signifikant bevorzugte Abbiegerichtung (3x L, 3x R), diese war weder von der Abstellungsrichtung noch von der Wirbelsäulenform, der Weideschrittpräferenz oder der Belastungssymmetrie der Vorderbeine im Trab abhängig. Die meisten Pferde zeigten im Freilauf keine signifikante Galopppräferenz (2x L, 11x gerade (N), 1x R), wogegen reiterlich bei den meisten Pferden eine Präferenz festgestellt wurde; beide Beurteilungen stimmten ebenso wie die Beurteilungen verschiedener Reiter nicht miteinander überein. Die gemessene Abstellungsrichtung ließ sich durch visuelle Beobachtung mit hoher Si-cherheit vorhersagen. Die bevorzugte Wirbelsäulenform stimmte nicht mit der reiterlich oder an der Longe festgestellten Biegung überein, wohl aber mit der Seite, auf die die Mähne fällt. Die vorliegende Studie weist nach, dass individuell stabile motorische Lateralität, weitge-hend bestehend aus den den Merkmalen der reiterlich postulierten „Schiefe“, bei gesun-den Pferden in symmetrischen Gangarten besteht und dass zwischen bestimmten Merkmalen vorhersagbare Zusammenhänge bestehen. Daraus ergeben sich wertvolle Schlussfolgerungen für das reiterliche Geraderichten des Pferdes, für das in Übereinstimmung mit der Reitliteratur insbesondere die Lektion Schulterherein geeignet erscheint. Es ist gelungen, für die wesentlichen Merkmale Abstellung, Biegung und Belastungssymmetrie der Vordergliedmaßen im Trab klinische Tests aufzuzeigen, die mit hoher Sicher-heit die Ergebnisse der Bewegungsanalyse vorhersagen können, wobei Rückschlüsse auf weitere asymmetrische Merkmale möglich sind. Die reiterliche Beurteilung von bevor-zugter Biegung und Galopppräferenz scheint jedoch von weiteren Faktoren außer dem Pferd selbst abhängig zu sein und stimmt häufig nicht mit den messbaren Parametern überein. – In dieser Studie wird erstmals eine wissenschaftlich überprüfte und klinisch anwendbare Methode zur umfassenden Analyse der motorischen Lateralität im Sinne der „Schiefe“ eines Pferdes beschrieben.
Summary -“Crookedness“ in the Horse: Symmetry of Motion and Hoof Loading
The purpose of this study was description of motor laterality (in terms of “crookedness“) of sound adult horses. 14 non-lame horses (10 Warmblood horses, 4 Quarter Horses) were examined walking and trotting on a treadmill for individual motion asymmetry concerning keeping the hindlimbs at an angle (hindlimbs not tracking the frontlimbs, “hindquarter angle”), lateroflexion, pro- and retraction of the limbs as well as loading of front- and hindlimbs. High-speed-kinematography and resistive pressure sensors were used simultanously. The horses were also ridden to evaluate preferred lateroflexion and preferred lead in canter. Moving at an angle towards a preferred side was assessed visually. Laterality of grazing stance was tested, as well as preferred turning direction, obstacle avoidance direction and preferred lead in canter while moving unrestrained in an arena. None of the horses moved symetrically over all traits; although there were symmetrical traits with individual horses, asymmetry was more commen (except for the unrestrained preferred lead test). On the treadmill, 12 horses moved with their hindquarters significantly at a angle (8x right (R), 4x left (L), mean lateral angle 1,22°±1,09° at a walk and 1,05°±1,03° at a trot), 10 showed laterality for lateroflexion (9x L, 1x R), 13 had significant asymmetries for protraction and/ or retraction and 12 for loading of contralateral limbs concerning normalized peak force (PFN) and impulse (IN), respectively, of at least one pair of limbs (all with good repeatibility). Horses keeping their hindquarters to the left showed significantly larger retraction of the right hindlimb compared to horses keeping their hindquarters to the right, who tended to further retract the left hindlimb. – Asymmetries found on the treadmill occurred in both gaits but were not always the same in both gaits, though the direction of the hindquarter angle as well as that of the preferred lateroflexion never contradicted each other within the same individual. Therefore, a specific laterality direction of hindquarter angle and lateroflexion could be assigned to each horse. The direction of preferred hindquarter angle and lateroflexion, respectively, were independent of each other so that the movement patterns “hindquarter angle without lateroflexion”, “lateroflexion without hindquarter angle”, “hindquarter angle with lateroflexion to the same side” (hindquarter-in/ travers) and “hindquarter angle with lateroflexion to opposite sides” (shoulder-in) could be found; no horse moved symmetrical for both traits. The lateroflexion of some horses could even be regarded as a double bend. At both gaits, symmetry of limb loading was independent of hindquarter angle as well as lateroflexion, taken seperately; still, there seems to be a relation between certain combinations of hindquarter angle and lateroflexion, on the one side, and the existence or absence of asymmetric loading of the frontlimbs in trot (horses moving with hindquarter angle, but without lateroflexion, and horses moving in shoulder-in mostly had asymmetric frontlimb loading).
238 7. Summary8 horses displayed laterality for a grazing stance (5x L, 3x R); their hindquarter angle, if they showed one, was significantly more often on the opposite side of their advanced frontleg while grazing. The direction of the grazing stance was independent of hindlimb retraction symmetry in either gait. Occurrence of grazing stance laterality significantly depended on the movement pattern consisting of hindquarter angle and lateroflexion (horses moving with a hindquarter angle, but without lateroflexion, and horses moving in shoulder-in mostly showed grazing stance laterality, while horses moving with lateroflexion, but without a hindquarter angle, and horses moving in hindquarter-in did not). Also, grazing stance laterality was highly predictive of the symmetry of frontlimb loading at trot (advanced frontleg has significantly higher impulse (IN) at trot; horses without grazing stance laterality showed symmetrical impulse). 12 of 13 horses displayed laterality for obstacle avoidance direction (5x L, 7x R) that was independent of the individually preferred lateroflexion but if the horses showed a hindquarter angle it was usually to the same side. 6 of 12 horses showed laterality for turning direction (3x L, 3x R) that had no relation to laterality of either hindquarter angle, lateroflexion, grazing stance or frontlimb loading symmetry at trot. Most horses had no significant lead preference in the unrestrained canter test (2x L, 11x no preference (N), 1x R) even though riders assigned a lead preference to most horses; both ratings did not match, as well as the rating between two different riders did not match. The (measured) direction of hindquarter angle was highly predictable by visual asessment. Preferred (measured) lateroflexion did not match the direction of lateroflexion assigned by either rider or on the long line; it was in agreement with the mane side of the horse, though. This study proves that individual and stable motor laterality exists in sound horses in symmetrical gaits, mostly consisting of the traits that are hypothesized as “crookedness” in riding literature. It also shows that predictible relationships exist between certain traits thereof. This knowledge is valuable since it has implications for the training of riding horses for straightness, wherefore especially riding shoulder-in should be helpful. Relatively easy clinical tests could successfully be found that allow well predicting main features of individual horses ́ motor laterality like hindquarter angle, lateroflexion and frontlimb loading symmetry at trot as measured on the treadmill. Some conclusions can also be drawn for other asymmetrical traits. The asessment of preferred lateroflexion and canter lead performed by riders, though, seems to also underlie other influences than the horse itself and failed to be a predictor of the measured traits. – For the first time, a scientifically proven and clinically applicable method of asessing a horses motor laterality in terms of “crookedness” is presented.

Abstract: Erratum in:
Vet J. 2005 May;169(3):321.
Corrected and republished in:
Vet J. 2005 May;169(3):322-5.
Oral administration of altrenogest for oestrus suppression in competition horses is believed to be widespread in some equestrian disciplines, and can be administered continuously for several months during a competition season. To examine whether altrenogest has any anabolic or other potential performance enhancing properties that may give a horse an unfair advantage, we examined the effect of oral altrenogest (0.044 mg/kg), given daily for a period of eight weeks, on social hierarchy, activity budget, body-mass and body condition score of 12 sedentary mares. We concluded that prolonged oral administration of altrenogest at recommended dose rates to sedentary mares resulted in no effect on dominance hierarchies, body mass or condition score.

Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Little is known in quantitative terms about the influence of different head-neck positions (HNPs) on the loading pattern of the locomotor apparatus. Therefore it is difficult to predict whether a specific riding technique is beneficial for the horse or if it may increase the risk for injury. OBJECTIVE: To improve the understanding of forelimb-hindlimb balance and its underlying temporal changes in relation to different head and neck positions. METHODS: Vertical ground reaction force and time parameters of each limb were measured in 7 high level dressage horses while being ridden at walk and trot on an instrumented treadmill in 6 predetermined HNPs: HNP1 – free, unrestrained with loose reins; HNP2 – neck raised, bridge of the nose in front of the vertical; HNP3 – neck raised, bridge of the nose behind the vertical; HNP4 – neck lowered and flexed, bridge of the nose considerably behind the vertical; HNP5 – neck extremely elevated and bridge of the nose considerably in front of the vertical; HNP6 – neck and head extended forward and downward. Positions were judged by a qualified dressage judge. HNPs were assessed by comparing the data to a velocity-matched reference HNP (HNP2). Differences were tested using paired t test or Wilcoxon signed rank test (P<0.05). RESULTS: At the walk, stride duration and overreach distance increased in HNP1, but decreased in HNP3 and HNP5. Stride impulse was shifted to the forehand in HNP1 and HNP6, but shifted to the hindquarters in HNP5. At the trot, stride duration increased in HNP4 and HNP5. Overreach distance was shorter in HNP4. Stride impulse shifted to the hindquarters in HNP5. In HNP1 peak forces decreased in the forelimbs; in HNP5 peak forces increased in fore- and hindlimbs. CONCLUSIONS: HNP5 had the biggest impact on limb timing and load distribution and behaved inversely to HNP1 and HNP6. Shortening of forelimb stance duration in HNP5 increased peak forces although the percentage of stride impulse carried by the forelimbs decreased. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: An extremely high HNP affects functionality much more than an extremely low neck.

Abstract: Training can best be explained as a process that occurs through stimulus-response-reinforcement chains, whereby animals are conditioned to associate cues in their environment, with specific behavioural responses and their rewarding consequences. Research into learning in horses has concentrated on their powers of discrimination and on primary positive reinforcement schedules, where the correct response is paired with a desirable consequence such as food. In contrast, a number of other learning processes that are used in training have been widely studied in other species, but have received little scientific investigation in the horse. These include: negative reinforcement, where performance of the correct response is followed by removal of, or decrease in, intensity of a unpleasant stimulus; punishment, where an incorrect response is paired with an undesirable consequence, but without consistent prior warning; secondary conditioning, where a natural primary reinforcer such as food is closely associated with an arbitrary secondary reinforcer such as vocal praise; and variable or partial conditioning, where once the correct response has been learnt, reinforcement is presented according to an intermittent schedule to increase resistance to extinction outside of training.

Abstract: Imitation can be defined as the copying of behavior. To a biologist, interest in imitation is focused on its adaptive value for the survival of the organism, but to a psychologist, the mechanisms responsible for imitation are the most interesting. For psychologists, the most important cases of imitation are those that involve demonstrated behavior that the imitator cannot see when it performs the behavior (e.g., scratching one's head). Such examples of imitation are sometimes referred to as opaque imitation because they are difficult to account for without positing cognitive mechanisms, such as perspective taking, that most animals have not been acknowledged to have. The present review first identifies various forms of social influence and social learning that do not qualify as opaque imitation, including species-typical mechanisms (e.g., mimicry and contagion), motivational mechanisms (e.g., social facilitation, incentive motivation, transfer of fear), attentional mechanisms (e.g., local enhancement, stimulus enhancement), imprinting, following, observational conditioning, and learning how the environment works (affordance learning). It then presents evidence for different forms of opaque imitation in animals, and identifies characteristics of human imitation that have been proposed to distinguish it from animal imitation. Finally, it examines the role played in opaque imitation by demonstrator reinforcement and observer motivation. Although accounts of imitation have been proposed that vary in their level of analysis from neural to cognitive, at present no theory of imitation appears to be adequate to account for the varied results that have been found.