|
|
Gomez Alvarez, C. B., Rhodin, M., Bobber, M. F., Meyer, H., Weishaupt, M. A., Johnston, C., et al. (2006). The effect of head and neck position on the thoracolumbar kinematics in the unridden horse. Equine Vet J Suppl, (36), 445–451.
Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: In many equestrian activities a specific position of head and/or neck is required that is dissimilar to the natural position. There is controversy about the effects of these positions on locomotion pattern, but few quantitative data are available. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effects of 5 different head and neck positions on thoracolumbar kinematics of the horse. METHODS: Kinematics of 7 high level dressage horses were measured walking and trotting on an instrumented treadmill with the head and neck in the following positions: HNP2 = neck raised, bridge of the nose in front of the vertical; HNP3 = as HNP2 with bridge of the nose behind the vertical; HNP4 = head and neck lowered, nose behind the vertical; HNP5 = head and neck in extreme high position; HNP6 = head and neck forward and downward. HNP1 was a speed-matched control (head and neck unrestrained). RESULTS: The head and neck positions affected only the flexion-extension motion. The positions in which the neck was extended (HNP2, 3, 5) increased extension in the anterior thoracic region, but increased flexion in the posterior thoracic and lumbar region. For HNP4 the pattern was the opposite. Positions 2, 3 and 5 reduced the flexion-extension range of motion (ROM) while HNP4 increased it. HNP5 was the only position that negatively affected intravertebral pattern symmetry and reduced hindlimb protraction. The stride length was significantly reduced at walk in positions 2, 3, 4 and 5. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant influence of head/neck position on back kinematics. Elevated head and neck induce extension in the thoracic region and flexion in the lumbar region; besides reducing the sagittal range of motion. Lowered head and neck produces the opposite. A very high position of the head and neck seems to disturb normal kinematics. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: This study provides quantitative data on the effect of head/neck positions on thoracolumbar motion and may help in discussions on the ethical acceptability of some training methods.
|
|
|
|
Weishaupt, M. A., Wiestner, T., von Peinen, K., Waldern, N., Roepstorff, L., van Weeren, R., et al. (2006). Effect of head and neck position on vertical ground reaction forces and interlimb coordination in the dressage horse ridden at walk and trot on a treadmill. Equine Vet J Suppl, (36), 387–392.
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.
|
|
