|
|
Fruehwirth, B., Peham, C., Scheidl, M., & Schobesberger, H. (2004). Evaluation of pressure distribution under an English saddle at walk, trot and canter. Equine Vet J, 36(8), 754–757.
Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Basic information about the influence of a rider on the equine back is currently lacking. HYPOTHESIS: That pressure distribution under a saddle is different between the walk, trot and canter. METHODS: Twelve horses without clinical signs of back pain were ridden. At least 6 motion cycles at walk, trot and canter were measured kinematically. Using a saddle pad, the pressure distribution was recorded. The maximum overall force (MOF) and centre of pressure (COP) were calculated. The range of back movement was determined from a marker placed on the withers. RESULTS: MOF and COP showed a consistent time pattern in each gait. MOF was 12.1 +/- 1.2 and 243 +/- 4.6 N/kg at walk and trot, respectively, in the ridden horse. In the unridden horse MOF was 172.7 +/- 11.8 N (walk) and 302.4 +/- 33.9 N (trot). At ridden canter, MOF was 27.2 +/- 4.4 N/kg. The range of motion of the back of the ridden horse was significantly lower compared to the unridden, saddled horse. CONCLUSIONS AND POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: Analyses may help quantitative and objective evaluation of the interaction between rider and horse as mediated through the saddle. The information presented is therefore of importance to riders, saddlers and equine clinicians. With the technique used in this study, style, skill and training level of different riders can be quantified, which would give the opportunity to detect potentially harmful influences and create opportunities for improvement.
|
|
|
|
Peham, C., Licka, T., Schobesberger, H., & Meschan, E. (2004). Influence of the rider on the variability of the equine gait. European Workshop on Movement Science, 23(5), 663–671.
Abstract: The aim of this study was to show that the motion pattern of a well-ridden horse varies less than the motion pattern of an unridden horse. In order to do so, we recorded the motion of two markers, one attached to the dorsal spinous processus of lumbar vertebra L4, the other to the right fore hoof. In total, we measured 21 horses in trot, ridden and unridden, with a fitting and with a non-fitting saddle. After breaking down the entire time series of the three-dimensional motion of the markers into their respective motion cycles, we computed a measure of motion pattern variability for the motion as well as for the derivatives (velocity and acceleration) along each of the three principal dimensions. Two of six variables (velocity and acceleration in the forward direction) displayed a significant discrimination between the ridden and the unridden case, and demonstrated the beneficial effect of a rider on the horse's motion pattern variability. Saddle fit was shown to have also an influence on motion variability: variability of two variables (velocity and of acceleration in forward direction) was significantly lower with a fitting saddle compared to a non-fitting saddle, a third variable (acceleration in the transversal direction) showed a significant difference also. This new method offers an objective evaluation of saddle fit, and a sensitive assessment of the quality of the rider in the moving horse.
|
|
|
|
Meschan, E. M., Peham, C., Schobesberger, H., & Licka, T. F. (2007). The influence of the width of the saddle tree on the forces and the pressure distribution under the saddle. The Veterinary Journal, 173(3), 578–584.
Abstract: As there is no statistical evidence that saddle fit influences the load exerted on a horse's back this study was performed to assess the hypothesis that the width of the tree significantly alters the pressure distribution on the back beneath the saddle. Nineteen sound horses were ridden at walk and trot on a treadmill with three saddles differing only in tree width. Kinetic data were recorded by a sensor mat. A minimum of 14 motion cycles were used in each trial. The saddles were classified into four groups depending on fit. For each horse, the saddle with the lowest overall force (LOF) was determined. Saddles were classified as “too-narrow” if they were one size (2 cm) narrower than the LOF saddle, and “too-wide” if they were one size (2 cm) wider than the LOF saddle. Saddles two sizes wider than LOF saddles were classified as “very-wide”. In the group of narrow saddles, the pressure in the caudal third (walk 0.63 N/cm2 +/- 0.10; trot 1.08 N/cm2 +/- 0.26) was significantly higher compared to the LOF saddles (walk 0.50 N/cm2 +/- 0.09; trot 0.86 N/cm2 +/- 0.28). In the middle transversal third, the pressure of the wide saddles (walk 0.73 N/cm2 +/- 0.06; trot 1.52 N/cm2 +/- 0.19) and very-wide saddles (walk 0.77 N/cm2 +/- 0.06; trot 1.57 N/cm2 +/- 0.19) was significantly higher compared to LOF saddles (walk 0.65 N/cm2 +/- 0.10/ 0.63 N/cm2 +/- 0.11; trot 1.33 N/cm2 +/- 0.22/1.27 N/cm2 +/- 0.20). This study demonstrates that the load under poorly fitting saddles is distributed over a smaller area than under properly fitting saddles, leading to potentially harmful pressures peaks.
|
|
