|
|
Lagarde, J., Kelso, J. A. S., Peham, C., & Licka, T. (2005). Coordination dynamics of the horse-rider system. J Mot Behav, 37(6), 418–424.
Abstract: The authors studied the interaction between rider and horse by measuring their ensemble motions in a trot sequence, comparing 1 expert and 1 novice rider. Whereas the novice's movements displayed transient departures from phase synchrony, the expert's motions were continuously phase-matched with those of the horse. The tight ensemble synchrony between the expert and the horse was accompanied by an increase in the temporal regularity of the oscillations of the trunk of the horse. Observed differences between expert and novice riders indicated that phase synchronization is by no means perfect but requires extended practice. Points of contact between horse and rider may haptically convey effective communication between them.
|
|
|
|
Winkelmayr, B., Peham, C., Fruhwirth, B., Licka, T., & Scheidl, M. (2006). Evaluation of the force acting on the back of the horse with an English saddle and a side saddle at walk, trot and canter. Equine Vet J Suppl, (36), 406–410.
Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Force transmission under an English saddle (ES) at walk, trot and canter is commonly evaluated, but the influence of a side saddle (SS) on the equine back has not been documented. HYPOTHESIS: Force transmission under a SS, with its asymmetric construction, is different from an ES in walk, trot and canter, expressed in maximum overall force (MOF), force in the quarters of the saddle mat, and centre of pressure (COP). The biomechanics of the equine back are different under a SS compared to ES. METHODS: Thirteen horses without clinical signs of back pain ridden in an indoor riding school with both saddles were measured using an electronic saddle sensor pad. Synchronous kinematic measurements were carried out with tracing markers placed along the back in front of (withers, W) and behind the saddle (4th lumbar vertebra, L4). At least 6 motion cycles at walk, trot and canter with both saddles (ES, SS) were measured. Out of the pressure distribution the maximum overall force (MOF) and the location of the centre of pressure (COP) were calculated. RESULTS: Under the SS the centre of pressure was located to the right of the median and slightly caudal compared to the COP under the ES in all gaits. The MOF was significantly different (P<0.01) between saddles. At walk, L4 showed significantly larger (P<0.01) vertical excursions under the ES. Under the SS relative horizontal movement of W was significantly reduced (P<0.01) at trot, and at canter the transversal movement was significantly reduced (P<0.01) . In both trot and canter, no significant differences in the movement of L4 were documented. CONCLUSIONS AND POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: The results demonstrate that the load under a SS creates asymmetric force transmission under the saddle, and also influences back movement. To change the load distribution on the back of horses with potential back pain and as a training variation, a combination of both riding styles is suitable.
|
|
|
|
Licka, T., Kapaun, M., & Peham, C. (2004). Influence of rider on lameness in trotting horses. Equine Vet J, 36(8), 734–736.
Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Equine lameness is commonly evaluated when the horse is being ridden, but the influence of the rider on the lameness has not been documented. OBJECTIVE: To document the effect of 2 riders of different training levels on the vertical movement of the head and croup. METHODS: Twenty mature horses were ridden at trot by an experienced dressage rider and a novice rider, as well as trotted in hand. Kinematic measurements of markers placed on the horse's head and sacral bone were carried out. The asymmetries of the vertical head and sacral bone motion were calculated as lameness parameters and compared with paired t tests. RESULTS: Trotting in hand, 17 horses showed forelimb lameness (1-4/10) and 13 hindlimb lameness (1-2/10). Intra-individually, 11 horses showed significant differences in forelimb lameness and 4 horses showed significant differences in hindlimb lameness when ridden. Over all horses, hindlimb lameness increased significantly under the dressage rider compared to unridden horses. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a rider can alter the degree of lameness; however, its influence cannot be predicted for an individual horse. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: In order to evaluate mild lameness, horses should be evaluated at trot both under saddle and in hand. If lameness is exacerbated, a second rider may be helpful; the level of training of the rider should be taken into consideration.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
