Explore the vast range of titles available.

Vision, hearing, olfaction, taste, and touch comprise the sensory modalities of most vertebrates. With these senses, the animal receives information about its environment. How this information is organized, interpreted, and experienced is known as perception. The study of the sensory abilities of animals and their implications for behavior is central not only to ethology but also to animal welfare. Sensory ability, perception, and behavior are closely linked. Horses and humans share the five most common sensory modalities, however, their ranges and capacities differ, so that horses are unlikely to perceive their surroundings in a similar manner to humans. Understanding equine perceptual abilities and their differences is important when horses and human interact, as these abilities are pivotal for the response of the horse to any changes in its surroundings. This review aims to provide an overview of the current knowledge on the sensory abilities of horses. The information is discussed within an evolutionary context and also includes a practical perspective, outlining potential ways to mitigate risks of injuries and enhance positive horse-human interactions. The equine sensory apparatus includes panoramic visual capacities with acuities similar to those of red-green color-blind humans as well as aural abilities that, in some respects exceed human hearing and a highly developed sense of smell, all of which influence how horses react in various situations. Equine sensitivity to touch has been studied surprisingly sparingly despite tactile stimulation being the major interface of horse training. We discuss the potential use of sensory enrichment/positive sensory stimulation to improve the welfare of horses in various situations e.g. using odors, touch or sound to enrich the environment or to appease horses. In addition, equine perception is affected by factors such as breed, individuality, age, and in some cases even color, emphasizing that different horses may need different types of management. Understanding the sensory abilities of horses is central to the emerging discipline of equitation science, which comprises the gamut of horse-human interactions. Therefore, sensory abilities continue to warrant scientific focus, with more research to enable us to understand different horses and their various needs.

The use of horses for sport is under scrutiny due to evidence that common practices such as tight nosebands may impair horse welfare. Restrictive nosebands prevent horses from performing normal comfort behaviour such as coughing and yawning. To address these concerns, the International Society for Equitation Science (ISES) developed a noseband tightness-checking device, the ISES “taper gauge,” along with a validated method that assesses how far the device can be inserted beneath the noseband at the dorsal midline of the nasal planum. However, citing concerns about the reliability of dorsal midline measurements, MacKechnie-Guire and co-authors evaluated three alternative sites: lateral to the nasal bone, the maxilla, and the mandible. They concluded that the lateral maxilla was a suitable substitute for the dorsal midline. The methods and interpretation of the findings of this study have raised concerns that measuring noseband laxity at the lateral maxilla may underestimate tightness because of the substantial volume of soft tissue at that location. This could expose horses to the welfare risks associated with overly tight nosebands. This commentary outlines the authors’ concerns and offers recommendations for how future studies might address avoid the issues raised here.

Pressures applied to horses via nosebands are of growing concern. The current study applied noseband pressure to the head of a dead horse. Pressure sensors were placed on the left nasal bone to record pressures as the noseband was progressively tightened. Tightness increased as predicated by holes in the strap of the noseband (as supplied) through eight steps from two fingers’ space, assessed using the standard International Society for Equitation Science Taper Gauge through to zero space. Sensors were also placed at the midline frontal plane and intra-orally at the level of the second premolar tooth. A strain gauge integrated into the noseband recorded tensions within the noseband at each tightness level, and a digital taper gauge under the noseband recorded forces on the face. Pressures at the left nasal bone rose to 403 kPa, while those at the frontal nasal plane reached 185 kPa. Pressures rose rapidly once the noseband was tightened at the equivalent of 1.4 fingers’ space under the noseband. These findings may help to explain cases of bone and skin damage at the noseband location and indicate the need to ensure that nosebands can accommodate more than the equivalent of 1.4 fingers beneath them in the nasal midline. Given that pressures are expected to rise from those reported here when horses wear bits, locomote, and when the reins are under tension, we conclude that the traditional provision of two fingers’ space should be retained.

Euphemisms, anthropomorphisms, and equivocation are established characteristics of traditional equestrian language. ‘Evasion’, ‘resistance’, and ‘disobedience’ are common labels assigned to unwelcome equine behaviours, implying that the horse is at fault for not complying with the human’s cues and expectations. These terms appear to overlook multiple motivations that may directly result in the horse offering unwelcome responses, which may then inadvertently be reinforced. This article revisits some of the anthropocentric inferences in these terms and explores the harmful consequences of such convenient but incorrect labels before proposing a redefinition of ‘conflict behaviour’ in human–horse interactions: Responses reflective of competing motivations for the horse that may exist on a continuum from subtle to overt, with frequencies that range from a singular momentary behavioural response to repetitive displays when motivational conflict is prolonged. Addressing how inadequate terms may mask pain, obscure the horse’s motivation, and deflect human culpability, this commentary highlights the merits of a multidisciplinary approach to terminology across equine research. Acknowledging that variables contributing to behaviour can be biological, environmental and anthropogenic, it emphasises the need for more investigation into the relationships between equicentric motivations reflecting equine telos and problematic horse behaviours.

This article reports on the results of a survey designed to explore the types of nosebands that owners, riders and trainers use in training and competition, their reasons for using nosebands, the design preferences in different disciplines and approaches to noseband tightness and monitoring, as well as the incidence of negative impacts related to noseband usage. Respondents (n = 3040) were asked to specify the type of noseband they were currently using and to rate how effective they were in achieving these stated reasons. Respondents who used nosebands (n = 2332) most commonly used Plain Cavesson (46.6%, n = 1087) and Hanoverian (24.8%, n = 579) nosebands. The reasons provided in the survey for noseband usage were grouped into three broad, mutually exclusive categories: Anatomical; Consequential and Passive. Responses across these categories were fairly evenly distributed overall: Anatomical (29.5%, n = 1501), Consequential (30.6%, n = 1560), Passive (32.9%, n = 1673) and other reasons (7.0%, n = 358). Across all respondents (n = 2332), the most common Anatomical reason given was to prevent the horse’s tongue from moving over the bit (20.8%, n = 485), the most common Consequential reason was to improve the appearance of the horse (20.4%, n = 476), with aligning with the rules of the sport (30.2%, n = 705) the most popular Passive reason. Of the respondents who answered the question of checking noseband tightness (n = 2295), most reported checking noseband tightness at the bridge of the nose (62.1%, n = 1426), some (10.4%, n = 238) reported checking for tightness on the side of the face and others under the chin (21.5%, n = 496). This survey also revealed some of the potential issues associated with noseband use, with 18.6% (n = 434) reporting at least one physical or behavioural complication. The most common complication was hair loss under the noseband (39.9%, n = 173). Crank systems were reported to be used by 28.9% (n = 665) of respondents. This is of concern as these devices can be excessively tightened, minimising jaw and tongue movement and may compromise horse welfare. Indeed, the current data in our study show that these devices are associated with an increased risk of complications being reported. Against the backdrop of potential harm to horse welfare associated with restrictive nosebands, this report may serve as a guide for future regulations and research. It helps improve our understanding of noseband preferences and their use in different disciplines.

Many frameworks have assessed the ultimate and ontogenetic underpinnings in the development of object permanence, but less is known about whether individual characteristics, such as sex or training level, as well as proximate factors, such as arousal or emotional state, affect performance in these tasks. The current study investigated horses’ performance in visible and invisible displacement tasks and assessed whether specific ontogenetic, behavioral, and physiological factors were associated with performance. The study included 39 Icelandic horses aged 2–25 years, of varying training levels. The horses were exposed to three tasks: (a) a choice test ( n = 37), (b) a visible displacement task ( n = 35), and (c) an invisible displacement task ( n = 31). 27 horses in the choice test, and 8 horses in the visible displacement task, performed significantly better than expected by chance, while none did so in the invisible displacement task. This was also reflected in their group performance, where horses performed above chance level in the choice task and the visible displacement task only. In the invisible displacement task, the group performed significantly worse than expected by chance indicating that horses persistently chose the side where they had last seen the target. None of the individual characteristics included in the study had an effect on performance. Unsuccessful horses had higher heart rate levels, and expressed more behavior indicative of frustration, likely because of their inability to solve the task. The increased frustration/arousal could lead to a negative feedback loop, which might hamper performance in subsequent trials. Care should thus be taken in future experimental designs to closely monitor the arousal level of the tested individuals in order to safeguard comparability.

Restrictive nosebands are used in equestrian sports to hold the bit in place and reduce mouth-opening, a response that can attract penalties in some sports and is thought to reduce the rider’s control of the horse. Sustained pressure from such tightly fitted (restrictive) nosebands denies normal behaviour and thus, causes frustration and distress that can jeopardise horse welfare. It also may push the cheek against the molar teeth, compress soft tissues including blood vessels and nerves, and possibly induce chronic changes to underlying bone. This study of mature cavalry horses (n = 144) was designed to explore relationships between visual and palpable damage to structures that underlie the nosebands of horses and any related bony changes in those horses as evidenced by radiography. Working independently of each other, two researchers inspected the horses for visual changes and palpable changes before the horses were radiographed. The radiographs were assessed by a separate pair of veterinary radiologists, again working independently of each other. Among the current population of horses, 37.5% had one or more radiographic changes to the nasal bones according to both radiologists, and 13.8% had one or more radiographic changes to the mandible. For nasal bones, the two radiologists reported bone deposition in 6.9% and 8.3% of the horses and bone thinning in 33.3% and 56.9% of the horses, respectively. By palpation, they found that 82% and 84% of the horses had palpable bone deposition of the nasal bones and 32% and 33.4% had palpable bone thinning. For the mandibles, the radiologists reported increased bone deposition in 18.8% and 32.6% of the horses but no bone thinning. By palpation, the two examiners reported 30.6% and 32.7% of the horses had palpable bone deposition and 10.4% and 11.1% had palpable bone thinning. This is the first report of lesions to the mandible at this site and this article presents the first confirmation of bony lesions at the site typically subjected to pressure from restrictive nosebands. These results suggest that radiographic bone thinning is more apparent in the nasal bones of riding horses than in the mandible and that both palpable and radiographic bone deposition are more likely in the mandible than in the nasal bones. That said, we note that the current study provides no evidence of a causal link between any piece of gear or its putative tightness and the lesions in these anatomical locations. Further studies are needed to identify risk factors for these clusters of lesions. The inadvertent deformation of bones in the horse’s head for competitive advantage is difficult to justify on ethical grounds.

An evidence-based understanding of dangerous or unwelcome behaviour in horses would greatly benefit both horses and humans who interact with them. Using owner-reported data from the Equine Behaviour Assessment and Research Questionnaire (E-BARQ), the current study investigated in-hand behaviours associated with dangerous or unwelcome ridden behaviours, notably bolting, rearing and bucking. Respondents (n = 1584) to the ridden horse section of the E-BARQ answered 42 demographic questions, followed by 268 behavioural items. Parallel analysis was conducted to group individual behaviours into rotated components to create independent and dependent indices. Multivariable general linear modelling and ordinal logistic regression were used to identify behaviours associated with bolting, rearing and bucking. Results revealed that safety-from-bolt increased as social confidence with horses (Odds ratio (OR) = 1.06; 95% confidence interval (cf = 1.02–1.09) and other animals (OR = 1.08; cf = 1.03–1.12), compliance in-hand (OR = 1.10; cf = 1.06–1.16) and tolerance of restraint (OR = 1.05; cf = 1.0–1.11) increased; and decreased as loading problems (OR = 0.95; cf = 0.92–0.99) increased. Safety-from-rear increased as tolerance of restraint (OR = 1.07; cf = 1.02–1.12) and social confidence with other animals (OR = 1.05; cf = 1.01–1.09) increased; and decreased as loading problems (OR = 0.94; cf = 0.91–0.98) increased. Safety-from-buck increased as social confidence with horses (b-value = 0.011, p < 0.001) and other animals (b-value = 0.010, p = 0.002), compliance in-hand (b-value = 0.015, p < 0.001), tolerance of restraint (b-value = 0.009, p = 0.027) and tolerance of haltering/bridling (b-value = 0.016, p = 0.010) increased, and it decreased as loading problems increased (b-value = −0.011, p < 0.001). By revealing, for the first time, that specific behaviours on the ground are associated with particular responses in the same horses when ridden, this study advances equitation science considerably. Identification of risk factors for dangerous behaviour while under saddle can improve safety for horses and riders and highlights the importance of effective and humane in-hand training.

This article reports on the results of a survey of racehorse trainers (n = 112) outlining the reasons for tongue-tie (TT) and noseband (NB) use by Thoroughbred trainers (TBTs) (n = 72) and Standardbred trainers (SBTs) (n = 40). The study also investigated the reported effectiveness of TTs and possible complications arising from their use. Tongue-tie use was reported by 62.5% (n = 70) of racehorse trainers. The reasons for TT use varied between TBTs and SBTs. For TBTs, the most common reason for TT use was to prevent or reduce airway obstruction (72.3%, n = 34), followed closely by to prevent or reduce airway noise (55.3%, n = 16). Standardbred trainers assigned equal importance for TT use [to prevent or reduce airway obstruction (69.6%, n = 16) and to prevent the horse from moving its tongue over the bit (69.6%, n = 16)]. Tongue-ties were considered significantly less effective at improving performance than at reducing airway obstruction and preventing the tongue from moving over the bit (t = −2.700, p = 0.0007). For respondents who used both TTs and NBs, there was a mild to moderate positive association between the reasons for using TTs and NBs. Of the 70 TT-using respondents, 51.4% (n = 36) recorded having encountered either a physical or behavioural complication due to TT use, with redness/bruising of the tongue (20.0%, n = 14) being the most common physical complication reported. Duration of use influenced the risk of observing complications. The likelihood of a respondent reporting a behavioural complication due to TT use increased with every minute of reported application and a nine-minute increment in application period doubled the odds of a respondent reporting a complication. Tightness was a risk factor for physical complications: Checking TT tightness by noting the tongue as not moving was associated with increased reporting of physical complications (OR = 6.59; CI 1.1–67.5). This pilot study provides some insight into how and why TTs are applied by some racehorse trainers, and the potential risks associated with their use. A further study of a larger cohort is recommended because these results are valid for only the 112 trainers who responded and cannot be generalized to the equine industry.

How the modification of saddle fitting parameters in horse riding affects rider's kinetics is very uncertain. The aim of this study is to describe how manipulating the two main adjustments that an end-user is likely to perform (saddle tilt and stirrup length) affects the biomechanics of a horse rider on a living horse. Eleven showjumpers volunteered to take part in this study. Each participant performed a 120-strides standardization trial at trot and canter, with 0° saddle tilt and stirrup length that would position the rider's knee at 90°. Following the standardization trial, four interventions were performed, which consisted of 60 strides with 60 mm shorter stirrups, 60 mm longer stirrups, 4° forward tilted saddle and 4° backward tilted saddle. Stirrup and rein tension forces were measured with tension loadcells. A symmetry index was calculated. Acceleration was measured with inertial measuring units at the helmet and back of the rider and shock attenuation was calculated. Shortening the stirrups and adjusting saddle tilt significantly enhanced shock attenuation at canter and increased force on the stirrups at trot and canter (  < 0.05). Lowering the stirrups reduced rein tension forces (  = 0.01). At trot, adjusting saddle tilt and stirrup length enhanced symmetry index on the bit (  < 0.05). These results allowed for general guidelines to be proposed, although individualization became an evident part of any saddle setup design due to a high inter-subject variability.