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.

Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: A common opinion among riders and in the literature is that the positioning of the head and neck influences the back of the horse, but this has not yet been measured objectively. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of head and neck position on the kinematics of the back in riding horses. METHODS: Eight Warmblood riding horses in regular work were studied on a treadmill at walk and trot with the head and neck in 3 different predetermined positions achieved by side reins attached to the bit and to an anticast roller. The 3-dimensional movement of the thoracolumbar spine was measured from the position of skin-fixed markers recorded by infrared videocameras. RESULTS: Head and neck position influenced the movements of the back, especially at the walk. When the head was fixed in a high position at the walk, the flexion-extension movement and lateral bending of the lumbar back, as well as the axial rotation, were significantly reduced when compared to movements with the head free or in a low position. At walk, head and neck position also significantly influenced stride length, which was shortest with the head in a high position. At trot, the stride length was independent of head position. CONCLUSIONS: Restricting and restraining the position and movement of the head and neck alters the movement of the back and stride characteristics. With the head and neck in a high position stride length and flexion and extension of the caudal back were significantly reduced. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: Use of side reins in training and rehabilitation programmes should be used with an understanding of the possible effects on the horse's back.

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: The objective of this study was to investigate the ability of horses (Equus caballus) to detour around symmetric and asymmetric obstacles. Ten female Italian saddle horses were each used in three detour tasks. In the first task, the ability to detour around a symmetrical obstacle was evaluated; in the second and third tasks subjects were required to perform a detour around an asymmetrical obstacle with two different degrees of asymmetry. The direction chosen to move around the obstacle and time required to make the detour were recorded. The results suggest that horses have the spatial abilities required to perform detour tasks with both symmetric and asymmetric obstacles. The strategy used to perform the task varied between subjects. For five horses, lateralized behaviour was observed when detouring the obstacle; this was consistently in one direction (three on the left and two on the right). For these horses, no evidence of spatial learning or reasoning was found. The other five horses did not solve this task in a lateralized manner, and a trend towards decreasing lateralization was observed as asymmetry, and hence task difficulty, increased. These non-lateralized horses may have higher spatial reasoning abilities.