Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T18:42:06.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Horses do not exhibit motor bias when their balance is challenged

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

A. E. D. Wells  and
D. Blache
A. E. D. Wells
Affiliation:
School of Animal Biology M085, Faculty of Natural & Agricultural Sciences, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
D. Blache*
Affiliation:
School of Animal Biology M085, Faculty of Natural & Agricultural Sciences, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In many equestrian pursuits such as dressage and show-jumping, it is important that the horse exhibits the same level of balance when ridden to the left as when ridden to the right in canter – that is, to show no motor bias. It is a long-held belief within such disciplines that to reduce bias that exists in horses and thus to enhance symmetry of performance to the left and right, the horse needs to be worked equally in both directions, although there is a lack of scientific evidence of this influencing bias. There also is little compelling evidence for either the existence or absence of motor bias in unridden (and therefore younger) or ridden (and therefore older) horses. In this study, we tested whether there was a difference in motor bias between unridden (n = 15) and ridden (n = 15) horses when their balance was challenged by cantering them in circles both to the left and to the right on the lunge. As indicators of a difference in balance between the left and right and thus as indicators of motor bias, we conducted three lunging tests – time spent in canter, whether the horse cantered on the correct lead and whether it became disunited. A grazing stance test, where the extended foreleg during grazing was recorded as the preferred forelimb, was also used to compare responses in a test where balance was not actively challenged, to the three lunging tests where balance was actively challenged. No bias was found in either the unridden or ridden groups when their balance was challenged, but ridden horses exhibited a motor bias in grazing stance – when their balance was not challenged. There was also a correlation between the responses in all three lunging tests, but none between the grazing stance test and any of the three lunging tests. We therefore conclude that neither ridden nor unridden horses are biased when their balance is challenged; thus it cannot be concluded that ambidextrous training affects an inherent bias, and that estimation of motor bias in horses is affected by the test conditions. Finally, if ridden horses are truly unbiased, strong human motor bias might be responsible for the common perception amongst riders that horses are biased.

Keywords

ambidextroushorselateralisationridingtraining
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 11 , November 2008 , pp. 1645 - 1650
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Annett, M 1976. A coordination of hand preference and skill replicated. British Journal of Psychology 67, 587–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnsley, RH, Rabinovitch, MS 1970. Handedness: proficiency versus stated preference. Perceptual Motor Skills 30, 343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brackenridge, CJ 1981. Secular variation in handedness over ninety years. Neuropsychologia 19, 459–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, RL 1975. When left-handed mice live in right-handed worlds. Science 187, 181–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corballis, MC 1983. Human laterality. Academic Press, Auckland.Google Scholar
Davis, C 1998. The kingdom of the horse. New Holland Publishers Australia Pty Ltd, Sydney.Google Scholar
Dennis, W 1958. Early graphic evidence of dextrality in man. Perceptual Motor Skills 8, 147–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deuel, NR, Lawrence, LM 1987. Laterality in the gallop gait of horses. Journal of Biomechanics 20, 645–649.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drevemo, S, Fredricson, I, Hjertén, G 1987. Early development of gait asymmetries in trotting Standardbred colts. Equine Veterinary Journal 19, 189–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elliot, D, Roy, EA 1996. Manual asymmetries in motor performance. CRC Press, Florida.Google Scholar
Lennenberg, EH 1967. Biological foundations of language. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Levy, J 1974. Psychobiological implications of bilateral asymmetry. In Hemispheric function in the human brain (ed. S Dimond and JG Beaumont). Paul Elek, London.Google Scholar
Mairinger, F 1983. Horses are made to be horses. Simon and Schuster Macmillan Co., New York.Google Scholar
Manroe, CO 1992. The horse. Michael Friedman Publishing Group Inc, New York.Google Scholar
McGreevy, PD, Rogers, LJ 2005. Motor and sensory laterality in Thoroughbred horses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92, 337–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGreevy, PD, Thomson, PC 2006. Differences in motor laterality between breeds of performance horse. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99, 183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moffett, H 1999. Enlightened equitation. David and Charles, London.Google Scholar
Murphy, J, Sutherland, A, Arkins, S 2005. Idiosyncratic motor laterality in the horse. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 91, 297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, L 1991. The fundamentals of riding. Roxby Paintbox Company, London.Google Scholar
Rogers, LJ, Andrew, RJ 2002. Comparative vertebrate lateralisation. Cambridge University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sivewright, M 1986. Thinking riding book 2: in good form. J.A. Allen and Co. Ltd, London.Google Scholar
Uhrbrock, RS 1973. Laterality in art. Journal of Aesthetics Art Criticism 32, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, DE, Norris, BJ 2007. Laterality in stride pattern preferences in racehorses. Animal Behaviour 74, 941–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D 1885. Palaeolithic dexterity. Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada 3, 119–133.Google Scholar
Woo, TL, Pearson, K 1927. Dextrality and sinistrality of hand and eye. Biometrika 19, 165–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar