|
McDonnell, S. M., & Henry, M. B., F. (1991). Spontaneous erection and masturbation in equids Proc 35th. J. Reprod. Fert. Suppl, 44, 664–665.
|
|
|
McGreevy, P. D., French, N. P., & Nicol, C. J. (1995). The prevalence of abnormal behaviours in dressage, eventing and endurance horses in relation to stabling. Vet. Rec., 137(2), 36–37.
Abstract: The behaviour of horses competing in different disciplines was studied and the relationship between the time they spent out of the stable and the prevalence of abnormal behaviour was examined. The owners of dressage, eventing and endurance horses were sent a questionnaire and a total of 1101 responses were received, giving data on 1750 horses. The behaviours studied were wood-chewing, weaving, crib-biting/wind-sucking and box-walking. The reported percentage prevalences of abnormal behaviour for the dressage, eventing and endurance horses were 32.5, 30.8 and 19.5, respectively. The relationship between the time spent in the stable and the prevalence of abnormal behaviour was examined by chi 2 tests which showed that there were significant linear trends for the eventing group (P < 0.001) and the dressage group (P < 0.05). It is concluded that the time a horse spends out of the stable is related to the discipline for which it is being trained and in dressage and eventing horses the time spent in a stable is correlated with an increased risk of abnormal behaviour.
|
|
|
McGreevy, P. D., & McLean, A. N. (2009). Punishment in horse-training and the concept of ethical equitation. J. Vet. Behav., 4(5), 193–197.
Abstract: By definition, punishment makes a response less likely in the future. Because horses are largely trained by negative reinforcement, they are susceptible to inadvertent punishment. Delays in the release of pressure can make desirable responses less likely and thus punish them. This study examines the correct use of negative reinforcement and identifies a continuum between poorly timed negative reinforcement and punishment. It explores some of the problems of non-contingent punishment and the prospect of learned helplessness and experimental neurosis. It concludes by introducing the concept of ethical equitation.
|
|
|
McKinley, S., & Young, R. J. (2003). The efficacy of the model-rival method when compared with operant conditioning for training domestic dogs to perform a retrieval-selection task. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 81(4), 357–365.
Abstract: Traditionally, dogs have been trained by operant conditioning techniques; that is, dogs make a desired behavioural response and this response is reinforced by a reward such as food. This type of training is very effective in training dogs to perform basic obedience behaviours (e.g. `stay'). However, dogs are social animals and should be predisposed to learn from social stimuli. In the present study, we used a modified version of the model-rival technique that has been extensively used in experiments investigating the cognitive ability of parrots. In this technique, social stimuli are used to create in the animal an interest in the object without the use of food or other rewards. Therefore, the animal learns the name of the object (intrinsic reward) and not that the object's name means food. In this experiment we compared the learning ability of nine pet dogs to solve the same retrieval-selection task having been previously trained using operant conditioning or model-rival techniques. The retrieval-selection task was the dogs had to correctly select the commanded object to bring to the experimenter from a group of three similar objects. The results show no difference in the speeds with which the dogs solved the test--demonstrating the efficacy of the model-rival method. This is the first time that the effectiveness of the model-rival technique has been experimentally demonstrated with dogs. Furthermore, we believe that the methodology reported in this paper has applications in dog training and in experiments into dog cognition.
|
|
|
Meershoek, L. S., Roepstorff, L., Schamhardt, H. C., Johnston, C., & Bobbert, M. F. (2001). Joint moments in the distal forelimbs of jumping horses during landing. Equine Vet J, 33(4), 410–415.
Abstract: Tendon injuries are an important problem in athletic horses and are probably caused by excessive loading of the tendons during demanding activities. As a first step towards understanding these injuries, the tendon loading was quantified during jump landings. Kinematics and ground reaction forces were collected from the leading and trailing forelimbs of 6 experienced jumping horses. Joint moments were calculated using inverse dynamic analysis. It was found that the variation of movement and loading patterns was small, both within and between horses. The peak flexor joint moments in the coffin and fetlock joints were larger in the trailing limb (-0.62 and -2.44 Nm/kg bwt, respectively) than in the leading limb (-0.44 and -1.93 Nm/kg bwt, respectively) and exceeded literature values for trot by 82 and 45%. Additionally, there was an extensor coffin joint moment in the first half of the stance phase of the leading limb (peak value 0.26+/-0.18 Nm/kg bwt). From these results, it was concluded that the loading of the flexor tendons during landing was higher in the trailing than in the leading limb and that there was an unexpected loading of the extensor tendon in the leading limb.
|
|
|
Meershoek, L. S., Schamhardt, H. C., Roepstorff, L., & Johnston, C. (2001). Forelimb tendon loading during jump landings and the influence of fence height. Equine Vet J Suppl, (33), 6–10.
Abstract: Lameness in athletic horses is often caused by forelimb tendon injuries, especially in the interosseus tendon (TI) and superficial digital flexor tendon (SDF), but also in the accessory ligament (AL) of the deep digital flexor tendon (DDF). In an attempt to explain the aetiology of these injuries, the present study investigated the loading of the tendons during landing after a jump. In jumping horses, the highest forces can be expected in the trailing limb during landing. Therefore, landing kinematics and ground reaction forces of the trailing forelimb were measured from 6 horses jumping single fences with low to medium heights of 0.80, 1.00 and 1.20 m. The tendon forces were calculated using inverse dynamics and an in vitro model of the lower forelimb. Calculated peak forces in the TI, SDF and DDF + AL during landing were 15.8, 13.9 and 11.7 kN respectively. The relative loading of the tendons (landing forces compared with failure forces determined in a separate study) increased from DDF to TI to SDF and was very high in SDF. This explains the low injury incidence of the DDF and the high injury incidence of the SDF. Fence height substantially influenced SDF forces, whereas it hardly influenced TI forces and did not influence AL strain. Reduction of fence height might therefore limit the risks for SDF injuries, but not for TI and AL injuries.
|
|
|
Mejdell, C. M., Buvik, T., Jørgensen, G. H. M., & Bøe, K. E. (2016). Horses can learn to use symbols to communicate their preferences. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 184, 66–73.
Abstract: Abstract This paper describes a method in which horses learn to communicate by touching different neutral visual symbols, in order to tell the handler whether they want to have a blanket on or not. Horses were trained for 10–15 min per day, following a training program comprising ten steps in a strategic order. Reward based operant conditioning was used to teach horses to approach and touch a board, and to understand the meaning of three different symbols. Heat and cold challenges were performed to help learning and to check level of understanding. At certain stages, a learning criterion of correct responses for 8–14 successive trials had to be achieved before proceeding. After introducing the free choice situation, on average at training day 11, the horse could choose between a “no change” symbol and the symbol for either “blanket on” or “blanket off” depending on whether the horse already wore a blanket or not. A cut off point for performance or non-performance was set to day 14, and 23/23 horses successfully learned the task within this limit. Horses of warm-blood type needed fewer training days to reach criterion than cold-bloods (P < 0.05). Horses were then tested under differing weather conditions. Results show that choices made, i.e. the symbol touched, was not random but dependent on weather. Horses chose to stay without a blanket in nice weather, and they chose to have a blanket on when the weather was wet, windy and cold (χ2 = 36.67, P < 0.005). This indicates that horses both had an understanding of the consequence of their choice on own thermal comfort, and that they successfully had learned to communicate their preference by using the symbols. The method represents a novel tool for studying preferences in horses.
|
|
|
Mejdell, C. M., Buvik, T., Jørgensen, G. H. M., & Bøe, K. E. (2016). Horses can learn to use symbols to communicate their preferences. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 184, 66–73.
Abstract: This paper describes a method in which horses learn to communicate by touching different neutral visual symbols, in order to tell the handler whether they want to have a blanket on or not. Horses were trained for 10-15min per day, following a training program comprising ten steps in a strategic order. Reward based operant conditioning was used to teach horses to approach and touch a board, and to understand the meaning of three different symbols. Heat and cold challenges were performed to help learning and to check level of understanding. At certain stages, a learning criterion of correct responses for 8-14 successive trials had to be achieved before proceeding. After introducing the free choice situation, on average at training day 11, the horse could choose between a “no change” symbol and the symbol for either “blanket on” or “blanket off” depending on whether the horse already wore a blanket or not. A cut off point for performance or non-performance was set to day 14, and 23/23 horses successfully learned the task within this limit. Horses of warm-blood type needed fewer training days to reach criterion than cold-bloods (P<0.05). Horses were then tested under differing weather conditions. Results show that choices made, i.e. the symbol touched, was not random but dependent on weather. Horses chose to stay without a blanket in nice weather, and they chose to have a blanket on when the weather was wet, windy and cold (χ2=36.67, P<0.005). This indicates that horses both had an understanding of the consequence of their choice on own thermal comfort, and that they successfully had learned to communicate their preference by using the symbols. The method represents a novel tool for studying preferences in horses.
|
|
|
Mejdell, C. M., Buvik, T., Jørgensen, G. H. M., & Bøe, K. E. (2016). Horses can learn to use symbols to communicate their preferences. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 184, 66–73.
Abstract: This paper describes a method in which horses learn to communicate by touching different neutral visual symbols, in order to tell the handler whether they want to have a blanket on or not. Horses were trained for 10-15min per day, following a training program comprising ten steps in a strategic order. Reward based operant conditioning was used to teach horses to approach and touch a board, and to understand the meaning of three different symbols. Heat and cold challenges were performed to help learning and to check level of understanding. At certain stages, a learning criterion of correct responses for 8-14 successive trials had to be achieved before proceeding. After introducing the free choice situation, on average at training day 11, the horse could choose between a “no change” symbol and the symbol for either “blanket on” or “blanket off” depending on whether the horse already wore a blanket or not. A cut off point for performance or non-performance was set to day 14, and 23/23 horses successfully learned the task within this limit. Horses of warm-blood type needed fewer training days to reach criterion than cold-bloods (P<0.05). Horses were then tested under differing weather conditions. Results show that choices made, i.e. the symbol touched, was not random but dependent on weather. Horses chose to stay without a blanket in nice weather, and they chose to have a blanket on when the weather was wet, windy and cold (χ2=36.67, P<0.005). This indicates that horses both had an understanding of the consequence of their choice on own thermal comfort, and that they successfully had learned to communicate their preference by using the symbols. The method represents a novel tool for studying preferences in horses.
|
|
|
Miller, R. M. (2000). The revolution in horsemanship. J Am Vet Med Assoc, 216(8), 1232–1233.
|
|