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.

Abstract: Despite numerous attempts to define animal tool use over the past four decades, the definition remains elusive and the behaviour classification somewhat subjective. Here, we provide a brief review of the definitions of animal tool use and show how those definitions have been modified over time. While some aspects have remained constant (i.e., the distinction between 'true' and 'borderline' tool use), others have been added (i.e., the distinction between 'dynamic' and 'static' behaviours). We present an updated, comprehensive catalog of documented animal tool use that indicates whether the behaviours observed included any 'true' tool use, whether the observations were limited to captive animals, whether tool manufacture has been observed, and whether the observed tool use was limited to only one individual and, thus, 'anecdotal' (i.e., N = 1). Such a catalog has not been attempted since Beck (1980). In addition to being a useful reference for behaviourists, this catalog demonstrates broad tool use and manufacture trends that may be of interest to phylogenists, evolutionary ecologists, and cognitive evolutionists. Tool use and tool manufacture are shown to be widespread across three phyla and seven classes of the animal kingdom. Moreover, there is complete overlap between the Aves and Mammalia orders in terms of the tool use categories (e.g., food extraction, food capture, agonism) arguing against any special abilities of mammals. The majority of tool users, almost 85% of the entries, use tools in only one of the tool use categories. Only members of the Passeriformes and Primates orders have been observed to use tools in four or more of the ten categories. Thus, observed tool use by some members of these two orders (e.g., Corvus, Papio) is qualitatively different from that of all other animal taxa. Finally, although there are similarities between Aves and Mammalia, and Primates and Passeriformes, primate tool use is qualitatively different. Approximately 35% of the entries for this order demonstrate a breadth of tool use (i.e., three or more categories by any one species) compared to other mammals (0%), Aves (2.4%), and the Passeriformes (3.1%). This greater breadth in tool use by some organisms may involve phylogenetic or cognitive differences � or may simply reflect differences in length and intensity of observations. The impact that tool usage may have had on groups' respective ecological niches and, through niche-construction, on their respective evolutionary trajectories remains a subject for future study.

Abstract: Ziel der Studie war die Beschreibung der motorischen Lateralität („Schiefe“) gesunder adulter Pferde. Hierzu wurden 14 lahmfreie Pferde (10 Warmblüter, 4 Quarter Horses) auf dem Laufband in Schritt und Trab auf individuelle Abweichungen von der symmetri-schen Bewegung hinsichtlich Abstellung der Hinterhand, Wirbelsäulenform (Biegung), Vor- und Rückführung sowie Belastung von Vorder- und Hintergliedmaßen jeweils simul-tan hochfrequenzkinematographisch und kinetisch mittels resistiver Hufdrucksensoren untersucht. Zusätzlich wurden bevorzugte Abstellung und Biegung sowie Galopppräfe-renz klinisch bzw. reiterlich beurteilt, das Vorliegen einer Weideschrittpräferenz unter-sucht und Freilaufversuche (bevorzugte Abbiegerichtung, Ausweichrichtung um ein Hin-dernis, Galoppräferenz) durchgeführt. Keines der Pferde zeigte Symmetrie über alle Merkmale; zwar wurde bei jedem Merkmal für einzelne Probanden Symmetrie festgestellt, mit Ausnahme des Galopp-Freilaufver-suchs trat Asymmetrie jedoch häufiger auf. 12 Probanden zeigten in der Bewegungsana-lyse eine signifikante seitliche Abstellung (8x rechts (R), 4x links (L), mittlere seitliche Abweichung im Schritt 1,22°±1,09°, im Trab 1,05°±1,03°), 10 eine bevorzugte Biegung (9x L, 1x R), 13 signifikante Asymmetrien der Gliedmaßenvor- bzw. -rückführung und 12 eine signifikante asymmetrische Gliedmaßenbelastung für die normalisierte Spitzenkraft (PFN, peak force) bzw. den Impuls der Belastung (IN) an mindestens einem Beinpaar (alle Merkmale individuell wiederholbar). Linksabgestellte Pferde führten in beiden Gang-arten das rechte Hinterbein signifikant weiter zurück als nach rechts abgestellte Pferde, die tendenziell eher das linke Hinterbein weiter zurückführten. – Die auf dem Laufband festgestellten Asymmetrien traten in beiden Gangarten auf, aber nicht immer überein-stimmend, wobei die Richtung der bevorzugten Abstellung und ebenso der bevorzugten Biegung beim einzelnen Pferd in Schritt und Trab nie gegensätzlich waren. Jeder dieser beiden Parameter wurde daher für das einzelne Pferd über beide Gangarten zusammen-gefasst. Die Richtung von Abstellung und Biegung waren voneinander unabhängig, so-dass die Bewegungsmuster Abstellung ohne Biegung, Biegung ohne Abstellung, Abstel-lung mit Biegung in Laufrichtung (Travers) sowie Abstellung mit Biegung entgegen der Laufrichtung (Schulterherein) vorkamen. Kein Pferd war in beiden Merkmalen symmet-risch; für manche Pferde war neben der einfachen Biegung auch eine S-Form der Wir-belsäule signifikant. Die Belastungssymmetrie der Gliedmaßen war in beiden Gangarten von der Abstellung und der Biegung unabhängig, es gab aber Hinweise auf Zusammen-hänge zwischen bestimmten Kombinationen von Abstellung und Biegung einerseits und der Existenz einer Belastungsasymmetrie der Vorderbeine im Trab andererseits (unge-bogen mit Abstellung laufende und im Schulterherein laufende Pferde belasteten i.d.R. asymmetrisch).
8 Pferde wiesen eine signifikante Weideschrittpräferenz auf (5x L, 3x R), die bei ebenso vorhandener seitlicher Abstellung signifkant häufiger auf der der Abstellung abgewandten Seite auftrat. Sie wies keinen Zusammenhang mit der Rückführung der Hinterbeine im Schritt oder im Trab auf. Das Auftreten einer Weideschrittpräferenz war signifikant vom durch Abstellung und Biegung bestimmten Bewegungsmuster abhängig (Auftreten bei Abstellung ohne Biegung und bei Schulterherein, nicht bei Travers oder Biegung ohne Abstellung). Zudem zeigt die Präferenz der Pferde im Weideschritt eine starke Überein-stimmung mit der Belastungssymmetrie der Vorderbeine im Trab (bevorzugt vorgestelltes Bein wird mehr belastet (IN); symmetrische Belastung bei fehlender Präferenz). Im Hindernisversuch hatten 12 von 13 getesteten Probanden eine signifikant bevorzugte Ausweichrichtung (5x L, 7x R); diese war unabhängig von der gemessenen Wirbelsäulenform, lag aber bei Pferden mit seitlicher Abstellung überwiegend auf der Seite der gemessenen Abstellung. Im Abbiegeversuch zeigten 6 von 12 getesteten Probanden eine signifikant bevorzugte Abbiegerichtung (3x L, 3x R), diese war weder von der Abstellungsrichtung noch von der Wirbelsäulenform, der Weideschrittpräferenz oder der Belastungssymmetrie der Vorderbeine im Trab abhängig. Die meisten Pferde zeigten im Freilauf keine signifikante Galopppräferenz (2x L, 11x gerade (N), 1x R), wogegen reiterlich bei den meisten Pferden eine Präferenz festgestellt wurde; beide Beurteilungen stimmten ebenso wie die Beurteilungen verschiedener Reiter nicht miteinander überein. Die gemessene Abstellungsrichtung ließ sich durch visuelle Beobachtung mit hoher Si-cherheit vorhersagen. Die bevorzugte Wirbelsäulenform stimmte nicht mit der reiterlich oder an der Longe festgestellten Biegung überein, wohl aber mit der Seite, auf die die Mähne fällt. Die vorliegende Studie weist nach, dass individuell stabile motorische Lateralität, weitge-hend bestehend aus den den Merkmalen der reiterlich postulierten „Schiefe“, bei gesun-den Pferden in symmetrischen Gangarten besteht und dass zwischen bestimmten Merkmalen vorhersagbare Zusammenhänge bestehen. Daraus ergeben sich wertvolle Schlussfolgerungen für das reiterliche Geraderichten des Pferdes, für das in Übereinstimmung mit der Reitliteratur insbesondere die Lektion Schulterherein geeignet erscheint. Es ist gelungen, für die wesentlichen Merkmale Abstellung, Biegung und Belastungssymmetrie der Vordergliedmaßen im Trab klinische Tests aufzuzeigen, die mit hoher Sicher-heit die Ergebnisse der Bewegungsanalyse vorhersagen können, wobei Rückschlüsse auf weitere asymmetrische Merkmale möglich sind. Die reiterliche Beurteilung von bevor-zugter Biegung und Galopppräferenz scheint jedoch von weiteren Faktoren außer dem Pferd selbst abhängig zu sein und stimmt häufig nicht mit den messbaren Parametern überein. – In dieser Studie wird erstmals eine wissenschaftlich überprüfte und klinisch anwendbare Methode zur umfassenden Analyse der motorischen Lateralität im Sinne der „Schiefe“ eines Pferdes beschrieben.
Summary -“Crookedness“ in the Horse: Symmetry of Motion and Hoof Loading
The purpose of this study was description of motor laterality (in terms of “crookedness“) of sound adult horses. 14 non-lame horses (10 Warmblood horses, 4 Quarter Horses) were examined walking and trotting on a treadmill for individual motion asymmetry concerning keeping the hindlimbs at an angle (hindlimbs not tracking the frontlimbs, “hindquarter angle”), lateroflexion, pro- and retraction of the limbs as well as loading of front- and hindlimbs. High-speed-kinematography and resistive pressure sensors were used simultanously. The horses were also ridden to evaluate preferred lateroflexion and preferred lead in canter. Moving at an angle towards a preferred side was assessed visually. Laterality of grazing stance was tested, as well as preferred turning direction, obstacle avoidance direction and preferred lead in canter while moving unrestrained in an arena. None of the horses moved symetrically over all traits; although there were symmetrical traits with individual horses, asymmetry was more commen (except for the unrestrained preferred lead test). On the treadmill, 12 horses moved with their hindquarters significantly at a angle (8x right (R), 4x left (L), mean lateral angle 1,22°±1,09° at a walk and 1,05°±1,03° at a trot), 10 showed laterality for lateroflexion (9x L, 1x R), 13 had significant asymmetries for protraction and/ or retraction and 12 for loading of contralateral limbs concerning normalized peak force (PFN) and impulse (IN), respectively, of at least one pair of limbs (all with good repeatibility). Horses keeping their hindquarters to the left showed significantly larger retraction of the right hindlimb compared to horses keeping their hindquarters to the right, who tended to further retract the left hindlimb. – Asymmetries found on the treadmill occurred in both gaits but were not always the same in both gaits, though the direction of the hindquarter angle as well as that of the preferred lateroflexion never contradicted each other within the same individual. Therefore, a specific laterality direction of hindquarter angle and lateroflexion could be assigned to each horse. The direction of preferred hindquarter angle and lateroflexion, respectively, were independent of each other so that the movement patterns “hindquarter angle without lateroflexion”, “lateroflexion without hindquarter angle”, “hindquarter angle with lateroflexion to the same side” (hindquarter-in/ travers) and “hindquarter angle with lateroflexion to opposite sides” (shoulder-in) could be found; no horse moved symmetrical for both traits. The lateroflexion of some horses could even be regarded as a double bend. At both gaits, symmetry of limb loading was independent of hindquarter angle as well as lateroflexion, taken seperately; still, there seems to be a relation between certain combinations of hindquarter angle and lateroflexion, on the one side, and the existence or absence of asymmetric loading of the frontlimbs in trot (horses moving with hindquarter angle, but without lateroflexion, and horses moving in shoulder-in mostly had asymmetric frontlimb loading).
238 7. Summary8 horses displayed laterality for a grazing stance (5x L, 3x R); their hindquarter angle, if they showed one, was significantly more often on the opposite side of their advanced frontleg while grazing. The direction of the grazing stance was independent of hindlimb retraction symmetry in either gait. Occurrence of grazing stance laterality significantly depended on the movement pattern consisting of hindquarter angle and lateroflexion (horses moving with a hindquarter angle, but without lateroflexion, and horses moving in shoulder-in mostly showed grazing stance laterality, while horses moving with lateroflexion, but without a hindquarter angle, and horses moving in hindquarter-in did not). Also, grazing stance laterality was highly predictive of the symmetry of frontlimb loading at trot (advanced frontleg has significantly higher impulse (IN) at trot; horses without grazing stance laterality showed symmetrical impulse). 12 of 13 horses displayed laterality for obstacle avoidance direction (5x L, 7x R) that was independent of the individually preferred lateroflexion but if the horses showed a hindquarter angle it was usually to the same side. 6 of 12 horses showed laterality for turning direction (3x L, 3x R) that had no relation to laterality of either hindquarter angle, lateroflexion, grazing stance or frontlimb loading symmetry at trot. Most horses had no significant lead preference in the unrestrained canter test (2x L, 11x no preference (N), 1x R) even though riders assigned a lead preference to most horses; both ratings did not match, as well as the rating between two different riders did not match. The (measured) direction of hindquarter angle was highly predictable by visual asessment. Preferred (measured) lateroflexion did not match the direction of lateroflexion assigned by either rider or on the long line; it was in agreement with the mane side of the horse, though. This study proves that individual and stable motor laterality exists in sound horses in symmetrical gaits, mostly consisting of the traits that are hypothesized as “crookedness” in riding literature. It also shows that predictible relationships exist between certain traits thereof. This knowledge is valuable since it has implications for the training of riding horses for straightness, wherefore especially riding shoulder-in should be helpful. Relatively easy clinical tests could successfully be found that allow well predicting main features of individual horses ́ motor laterality like hindquarter angle, lateroflexion and frontlimb loading symmetry at trot as measured on the treadmill. Some conclusions can also be drawn for other asymmetrical traits. The asessment of preferred lateroflexion and canter lead performed by riders, though, seems to also underlie other influences than the horse itself and failed to be a predictor of the measured traits. – For the first time, a scientifically proven and clinically applicable method of asessing a horses motor laterality in terms of “crookedness” is presented.

Abstract: The notion that tool-use is unique to humans has long been refuted by the growing number of observations of animals using tools across various contexts. Yet, the mechanisms behind the emergence and sustenance of these tool-use repertoires are still heavily debated. We argue that the current animal behaviour literature is biased towards a social learning approach, in which animal, and in particular primate, tool-use repertoires are thought to require social learning mechanisms (copying variants of social learning are most often invoked). However, concrete evidence for a widespread dependency on social learning is still lacking. On the other hand, a growing body of observational and experimental data demonstrates that various animal species are capable of acquiring the forms of their tool-use behaviours via individual learning, with (non-copying) social learning regulating the frequencies of the behavioural forms within (and, indirectly, between) groups. As a first outline of the extent of the role of individual learning in animal tool-use, a literature review of reports of the spontaneous acquisition of animal tool-use behaviours was carried out across observational and experimental studies. The results of this review suggest that perhaps due to the pervasive focus on social learning in the literature, accounts of the individual learning of tool-use forms by naïve animals may have been largely overlooked, and their importance under-examined.