Repeatability of the horse's jumping parameters with and without the rider

Lewczuk, Dorota; Sloniewski, K.; Reklewski, Z.

doi:10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.06.008

Cited by 21 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, differences exhibited in this study may be attributable to talent or inherent skill of the dogs, and not related to experience or the cumulative effect of training. However training has been shown to result in more consistent performance in showjumpers; Lewczuk et al (2006) reported superior jump performance, defined by kinematic evaluation, in horses with a rider after a training period, compared to the same horses free-jumping loose (with no rider). The ridden condition in Lewczuk's et al's (2006) work could be considered the equivalent of having a handler instructing an agility dog and represents the collective impact of previous training, suggesting experience could be an influential factor in performance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of the A-frame on forelimb kinematics in experienced and inexperienced agility dogs

Williams

Jackson

Phillips

et al. 2017

CEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Limited research has evaluated the kinematics of agility dogs over different equipment despite the growing popularity of recreational and competitive agility. A-frames are associated with a higher risk of injury; these risks could be related to how dogs approach the equipment. We hypothesised that forelimb (FL) and spinal kinematics would differ throughout the different phases of negotiating the A-frame: incline, apex, decline, and between experienced and inexperienced agility dogs. Eight agility dogs of mixed breed and age, all trained on the A-frame participated in the study. Participants were divided into two groups: inexperienced dogs (ID: <4 years training; n=4) and experienced dogs (ED: >4years training; n=4), and undertook 3 runs over the A-frame. Reflective markers were placed on each dog’s carpus (Ca), radiohumeral (RH) and scapulohumerus (SH) joints, Atlas, C3 and L3. Video footage was transferred to Dartfish™ to enable FL joint angles to be calculated for the approach (last stride), incline (FL contact), apex (FL over), decline (FL touchdown and FL departure). The range of movement (ROM) for spinal markers was also calculated. Wilcoxon signed rank analyses, with Bonferroni correction applied (P<0.02), indicated if kinematics differed for ED and ID between the phases. Similar kinematic patterns were observed through all phases for C3 and L3, however a greater ROM was found for ED: C3 and ID: L3. For Atlas, ED stayed in flexion for all phases whilst ID movement varied: approach-incline extension, incline-apex: flexion, apex to decline extension followed by flexion. No significant differences in FL joint angles existed (P>0.02). No significant differences in kinematic measures were seen between ED and ID dogs in any phase of the A-frame. ED demonstrate consistent movement patterns; ID vary their head and neck position more, and exaggerate their apex jump. Rounding the A-frame apex could encourage a less-extreme technique in ID.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of the A-frame on forelimb kinematics in experienced and inexperienced agility dogs

Williams

Jackson

Phillips

et al. 2017

CEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; Lewczuk et al . ; Nascimento de Godoi et al . ), and the effect of early training (Santamaria et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A subjective descriptive study of the warm‐up and turn to a fence, approach, take‐off, suspension, landing and move‐off in 10 showjumpers

Dyson

Tranquille

Walker

et al. 2016

Equine Veterinary Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThere is limited knowledge about causes of musculoskeletal injury in showjumpers. The objectives were to describe features of the turn, approach and jump in a group of experienced showjumpers believed by their riders to be sound, to relate these findings to clinical findings, and to identify features that may predispose to injury. Ten experienced showjumpers in normal competition training jumped an upright and a parallel fence four times off the left and right reins respectively, after a rider-defined period of warm-up. Real-time and high-speed motion capture was undertaken. Detailed subjective assessment of the gait was performed during the warm-up, on the turn and approach to the jump and all phases of the jump. Six horses had thoracolumbar pain or epaxial muscle tension. Six horses exhibited a poor-quality canter. The mean duration of warmup was 7 min (range 5-10 min). All horses had lean of the trunk and hindlimbs >45°on the turn. The inside hindlimb was placed in front of the outside hindlimb in 75% of the turns. Sideways oscillations of the hocks during stance were seen in all horses on the turn and on the straight approach in five horses. The inside hindlimb had greater magnitude of oscillation than the outside hindlimb on the turns. Repeated asynchronous push-off with the hindlimbs at take-off was seen in three horses. The hindlimbs drifted to the left or right during the ascent-phase of suspension in four horses, reflecting asymmetrical push-off. Only two horses landed consistently with the correct forelimb leading relative to the direction in which the horse had to turn after the fence. Four horses landed seven (n = 2) or eight (n = 2) times each with the left (n = 2) and right (n = 2) forelimbs respectively. Repetitive overload through asymmetrical use of the left and right canter leads, inadequate warm-up, and limb instability could potentially predispose to injury.

show abstract

“…Regarding horse conformation (Dufosset and Langlois, 1984), the problem of possible bias by free jumping judging still exists (Santamaria et al, 2006). Repeatable characteristic of some jumping parameters underline the needs for further research in this field (Cassiat et al, 2000;Lewczuk et al, 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Young horse response on changing distance in free jumping combination

Lewczuk

2008

Animal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to verify the influence of distance between obstacles in combination for free jumping test on linear and temporal kinematic parameters of the jump. Investigated groups of halfbred stallions being prepared for 100 days performance test (two groups, 36 horses in total) were filmed on different distances between main doublebarre obstacle and last cross-pole in the jumping lane. Both groups of horses were filmed during their regular work in the same training centre 1 week before performance test. Jumping parameters were obtained on the same size of the obstacle. Data were analysed separately for both groups by analysis of variance. On the basis of the conducted study, it is possible to conclude that in the range of the most popular free jumping distance horses may use different jumping techniques to clear the jump. The shorter distances between last two obstacles in the jumping lane in the range of 6.8 to 7.1 m stimulate higher jumps; however, the reaction of horses was not exactly the same for all measured jumping parameters.

show abstract

Repeatability of the horse's jumping parameters with and without the rider

Cited by 21 publications

References 11 publications

The effect of the A-frame on forelimb kinematics in experienced and inexperienced agility dogs

The effect of the A-frame on forelimb kinematics in experienced and inexperienced agility dogs

A subjective descriptive study of the warm‐up and turn to a fence, approach, take‐off, suspension, landing and move‐off in 10 showjumpers

Young horse response on changing distance in free jumping combination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About