Asymmetries of horses walking and trotting on treadmill with and without rider

Pilot study of locomotor asymmetry in horses walking in circles with and without a rider

Background

Horses commonly show asymmetries that manifest as left (L)-right (R) differences in vertical excursion of axial body segments. Moving on a circle confounds inherent individual asymmetries. Our goals were to evaluate individual and group asymmetry patterns and compare objective data with subjective impressions of side preference/laterality in horses walking on L and R circles.

Methods

Fifteen horses walked on L and R circles unridden and ridden on long and short reins. Optical motion capture (150 Hz) tracked skin-fixed markers. Variables were trunk horizontal angle; neck-to-trunk angle; vertical range of motion (ROM) for the head, withers and sacrum; ROM for pelvic roll, pitch, and yaw; mean pelvic pitch; and ROM for hip, stifle and tarsal joints. Differences between inside and outside hind steps were determined for vertical minima and maxima of the head (HMinDiff/HMaxDiff), withers (WMinDiff/WMaxDiff) and sacrum (PMinDiff/PMaxDiff). Subjective laterality was provided by owners. Data analysis used mixed models, first without and then with subjective laterality. Iterative k-means cluster analysis was used to associate biomechanical variables with subjective laterality.

Results

PMaxDiff, PMinDiff and WMaxDiff indicated R limb asymmetry in both directions. WMinDiff indicated L (inside) fore asymmetry for L direction but was close to zero for R direction. Hip ROM was significantly smaller for the inside limb in both directions (L inside/outside: 16.7° vs. 20.6°; R: 17.8° vs. 19.4°). Stifle ROM was significantly larger for the inside limb in both directions (L: 43.1° vs. 39.0°; R: 41.9° vs. 40.4°). Taking the general direction effect into account the R hip and L stifle had larger ROM. Adding laterality to the models (seven horses L- vs. six horses R-hollow), PMaxDiff R hind asymmetry was more obvious for L-hollow horses than for R-hollow horses. L-hollow horses had greater pelvic roll ROM moving in L vs. R direction. L-hollow horses had smaller inside and greater outside hip joint ROM in L vs. R direction. R-hollow horses had a significant difference in HMinDiff between L (0 mm) and R (-14 mm) directions, indicating less head lowering at outside forelimb midstance in R direction, and larger outside tarsal ROM in R (38.6°) vs. L (37.4°) direction (p ≤ 0.05). The variables that agreed most frequently with subjective laterality in cluster analysis were pelvic roll ROM, followed by HMinDiff and PMaxDiff.

Conclusion

Differences between horses walking in L and R directions were found both at group and individual levels, as well as evidence of associations with subjective laterality. Horses maintained more symmetric hip and stifle ROM and withers vertical motion when walking on the R circle. Findings suggest that left and right lateralised horses may not be perfect mirror images. Pelvic roll ROM emerged as a promising variable to determine laterality in walk as perceived by the rider, especially when considered together with other variables.

Differential rotational movement and symmetry values of the thoracolumbosacral region in high-level dressage horses when trotting

High-level dressage horses regularly perform advanced movements, requiring coordination and force transmission between front and hind limbs across the thoracolumbosacral region. This study aimed at quantifying kinematic differences in dressage horses when ridden in sitting trot-i.e. with additional load applied in the thoracolumbar region-compared with trotting in-hand. Inertial sensors were glued on to the midline of the thoracic (T) and lumbar (L) spine at T5, T13, T18, L3 and middle of the left and right tubera sacrale of ten elite dressage horses (Mean±SD), age 11±1 years, height 1.70±0.10m and body mass 600±24kg; first trotted in-hand, then ridden in sitting trot on an arena surface by four Grand Prix dressage riders. Straight-line motion cycles were analysed using a general linear model (random factor: horse; fixed factor: exercise condition; covariate: stride time, Bonferroni post hoc correction: P<0.05). Differential roll, pitch and yaw angles between adjacent sensors were calculated. In sitting trot, compared to trotting in-hand, there was increased pitch (mean±S.D), (in-hand, 3.9 (0.5°, sitting trot 6.3 (0.3°, P = <0.0001), roll (in-hand, 7.7 (1.1°, sitting trot 11.6 (0.9°, P = 0.003) and heading values (in-hand, 4.2 (0.8), sitting trot 9.5 (0.6°, P = <0.0001) in the caudal thoracic and lumbar region (T18-L3) and a decrease in heading values (in-hand, 7.1 (0.5°, sitting trot 5.2 (0.3°, P = 0.01) in the cranial thoracic region (T5-T13). Kinematics of the caudal thoracic and lumbar spine are influenced by the rider when in sitting trot, whilst lateral bending is reduced in the cranial thoracic region. This biomechanical difference with the addition of a rider, emphasises the importance of observing horses during ridden exercise, when assessing them as part of a loss of performance assessment.