ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Dynamic pressure effect on horse and horse rider during riding
Graeme Nicol • Graham P. Arnold •
Weijie Wang • Rami J. Abboud
� International Sports Engineering Association 2014
Abstract Horse riding predisposes to degenerative spinal
injury to both rider and horse. This study evaluated the
dynamic pressure exerted on horse and horse rider. The
main comparison investigated was how the flocking
(cushioning) material of a saddle affected the pressure
exerted on both. Six horse riders and one horse were used
to conduct this study. The Pliance� horse saddle and seat
pressure testing systems, designed by NovelGmBH, were
used for this study. Pressure recordings were carried out
from a saddle fitted with wool then again following its
conversion to air flocking. Both flocking materials were
tested during a variety of different gait settings using two
pressure mats to record the pressures firstly being exerted
onto the horse and secondly onto the rider. This study was
the first carried out to examine the pressure exerted on
horse and rider. Results found that both the mean peak
pressure (MPP) and mean pressure–time integral (PTI)
exerted on the rider increased by as much as 21.9 and
22 %, respectively, following conversion to air flocking. In
contrast, the air flocking saddle exerted a lower MPP and
PTI on the horse by as much as 25.3 and 26.6 %, respec-
tively. This study has shown that air flocking reduces the
pressure exerted on the horse; however, it has also indi-
cated that it increased the pressures exerted on the rider. As
a result of our study, further research needs to be conducted
to determine the most appropriate material to flock a saddle
with.
1 Introduction
There is a higher incidence of cervical and lumbar
degenerative spondyloarthropathy in experienced horse
riders [1]. Degenerative changes are produced by a com-
bination of mechanisms. The rider’s posture causes the
muscles in the back to contract to balance the spine and
prevent injury, which leads to large compressive forces
being produced resulting in greater pressure placed on the
intravertebral discs and facet joints. The extension moment
is increased further due to positioning of the arms and
tensile force exerted by the reins. Ground reaction force
(GRF) is another contributing factor. It is an equal and
opposite force to the force exerted by the rider on the
saddle. These forces applied repetitively over time may
lead to injuries such as degeneration of joints, lower back
pain and fatigue fractures [2]. Saddle cushioning material
may directly affect the GRF and in so doing may reduce the
extent of degenerative changes seen in the spine. The
saddle cushioning material may not reduce the compressive
forces produced by the rider’s posterior back muscles
directly. However, it could indirectly as performance
problems as a result of high pressure points affecting the
horse causes the horse to pull on the reins harder exhibiting
more erratic movements, which in-turn will result in a
larger balancing force being required by the musculoskel-
etal system [3].
Saddle-fit is a recognised factor in the pathogenesis of
equine back problems [4], localised pressure concentra-
tions, regularly exerting pressures up to 29.8 kPa [3]. This
is greater than the capillary closure pressure in both skin
and muscle which is 4.66 kPa. When a horse carries a
78 kg rider its limbs experience an additional dynamic load
excluding the weight of the rider of up to 380 N [5]. This
induces an overall extension of the equine spine, which
G. Nicol � G. P. Arnold � W. Wang � R. J. Abboud (&)
Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Institute of
Motion Analysis and Research, TORT Centre, Ninewells
Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee,
Dundee DD1 9SY, Scotland, UK
e-mail: [email protected]
Sports Eng
DOI 10.1007/s12283-014-0149-z
contributes to soft tissue injuries, crowding and overriding
of the dorsal spinous processes ‘‘kissing spine’’ syndrome
[6, 7]. In the transverse plane, the rider induces a desta-
bilising effect during the trot and gallop on the equine
spine.
The equine spine displays three types of movement:
dorsoventral flexion–extension, axial rotation and lateral
bending [8, 9]. The saddle is placed over the region of the
spine with the greatest amount of axial rotation and axial
bending in the mid-thoracolumbar spine at the level of
11th/12th thoracic intervertebral joints [9].
No research has thus far been conducted to evaluate the
shock attenuating properties of the materials used to
manufacture saddles. In addition no research has been
conducted to discover the magnitude of the force exerted
on riders whilst riding. This study set out to help discover
these missing pieces of information.
2 Methods
2.1 Subjects
Six experienced riders were selected as volunteers for this
study as it has been found that the particular level of rider
training can influence any interaction with the saddle [10].
Riders selected were of varying heights and weights
(Table 1). Six were recruited as although each of the riders
had similar riding abilities, each individual brought their
own unique riding style. The horse was 17 hands high
(approximately 1.7 m), in regular training hence did not
find the study physically strenuous. The study was
approved by the University Research Ethics Committee in
consultation with the Home Office inspector for projects
conducted on animals.
2.2 Pliance� system
Pliance� system (Novel GmBH Munich, Germany) was
used to record the pressures under the saddle as it has
previously produced repeatable results [7, 11]. This
pressure measurement system consists of a pressure mat
containing 256 sensors that is situated under the saddle.
The seat sensor mat originally designed to measure the
pressures exerted on a cyclist was adapted to measure
the pressure between the rider and the saddle, see Fig. 1.
This used similar pressure sensors and technology to that
of the Pliance� saddle system which has also been
proven to give repeatable results [12]. The data collected
from the two mats were synchronised in real time via
the adaptor and control box which was carried on
the rider’s back in a specially designed harness, see
Fig. 2. The recorded data were then sent via a Bluetooth
radio transmitter to a computer to show the overall
pressure distribution above and below the saddle during
riding.
Table 1 Horse rider demographics
Identification number Gender Weight (kg) Height (m)
1 Female 51 1.64
2 Female 54 1.67
3 Male 76 1.79
4 Male 83 1.82
5 Male 89 1.90
6 Male 112 1.89
Fig. 1 a Pliance� horse saddle sensor mat, b Pliance� saddle seat
sensor mat
Fig. 2 a Synchronisation control box, b Pliance� saddle seat sensor
mat, c Pliance� horse saddle sensor mat
G. Nicol et al.
Pliance� ‘‘creation of any masks’’ was used to differ-
entiate areas on both pressure mats allowing different areas
of the horse and rider to be analysed individually. A mask
was created to investigate the three naturally created areas
of pressure on the horse, see Fig. 3. The areas displayed
represent the left and right sides of the saddle in contact
with the horse. The different areas include the rear section
of the saddle areas 1 and 2, the front (wither area) areas 3
and 4, and the region in contact with the shoulder areas 5
and 6. This is displayed alongside the saddle for a clearer
understanding, Fig. 3. To examine the pressure exerted on
the rider whilst riding, the seat pressure mat recorded the
pressure experienced through the left and right side of the
saddle, areas 7 and 8, Fig. 4.
2.3 Testing protocol
A standardised test protocol was used when each rider
tested the saddle. Pressure readings were recorded firstly
when the horse was stationary. The horse was then ridden
on one lead, i.e. the right at a walk, trot and canter
allowing measurements to be taken for each gait before
the process was repeated on the alternate lead. On com-
pletion of the test, the pressure was again measured while
stationary to ensure the measurement was equal to the
pre-test recording. The procedure was carried out three
times by each rider on two separate days. The same
saddle was then converted from traditional wool flocking
to air flocking and the testing protocol was repeated as
before.
2.4 Gait analysis
Each horse gait is distinctly different and hence it was
important that each be tested independently. Data were
recorded along a 35-m straight line eliminating pressure
variations due to turning. Recordings were first taken
during walking, this being a four-beat gait cycle. Over the
35-m straight line, 20 four beat gait cycles were analysed.
This was performed by all six riders three times on two
separate days and equated to 720 four beat gait cycles both
before and after conversion of the saddle from wool to air
flocking.
The trotting gait which is a two-beat gait cycle was
recorded in two ways; firstly, readings were taken during a
rising trot (where the rider rises from the saddle and sits
once per gait cycle). The horse whilst trotting produced 13
two-beat gait cycles along the 35-m straight line. Again all
six riders performed this three times on two separate days.
In addition, recordings were collected whilst the rider had
their period of sitting at the time the near and subsequently
the off horse fore leg was in contact with the ground. This
was felt important to exclude any asymmetry in the horse
musculature as horses, similar to humans, have a favoured
side in effect being right or left sided. This resulted in twice
the number of recordings along the 35-m straight line being
conducted which equated to a total of 936 two-beat gait
cycles both before and after conversion of the saddle from
wool to air flocking.
Secondly, the saddle was tested during a sitting trot
(where the rider stays seated on the saddle). The horse
Fig. 3 Horse saddle mask and
saddle
Fig. 4 Horse rider saddle mask
Dynamic pressure effect on horse and horse rider
completed 13 two-beat gait cycles along the 35-m straight
line. However, as the rider stays seated this halved the
number of gait cycles analysed to 468 compared to the
rising trot as the rider is always seated as this is a sym-
metrical gait cycle.
Recordings were then taken at a canter which is a three-
beat gait cycle. During this gait, the horse completed 7
three-beat gait cycles along the 35-m straight line. This was
performed by all six riders three times on both the right and
left lead on two separate days producing 504 three-beat
cantering gait cycles both before and after conversion of
the saddle from wool to air flocking.
2.5 Ensuring fair testing
Throughout the experiment the same 35-m straight was
used and each rider wore the same riding equipment. The
same pressure measuring equipment was used throughout
the experiment and the recordings were taken in the same
manner. The pressure readings of each rider were recorded
on two separate days so an average figure was used for
comparison. All data recorded were done by the same
individual throughout the experiment.
2.6 Statistical methods
Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS� (version 16).
Data were reported using descriptive parameters, e.g. mean,
standard error of mean, the number of samples/trails. All data
collected had a normal distribution (i.e. a skewness value less
than twice its standard error) and were analysed using paired
t test to evaluate whether the two groups of data were sig-
nificantly different. The significant level was set as 0.05.
3 Results
Both the flocking materials in the study were investigated
for mean peak pressure (MPP) and mean pressure–time
integral (PTI). The pressures exerted on the horse were
examined, this being mat areas 1–6, Fig. 3 and then the
pressures exerted on the rider, this being mat areas 7 and 8,
Table 2 Analysis by walking: mean peak pressure (kPa)/mean pressure–time integral (kPa s)
Mean peak pressure (kPa) Mean pressure–time integral (kPa s)
Mean Std. error mean Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Std. error mean Sig. (2-tailed)
Area 1
M1 before 6.2969 0.83654 0.010 81.6922 10.41466 0.00
M1 after 5.2781 0.64249 58.9397 7.75408
Area 2
M2 before 6.17 0.788 0.312 78.8042 10.17058 0.117
M2 after 6.38 0.797 68.6842 9.45244
Area 3
M3 before 5.0686 0.64958 0.679 73.7778 9.38862 0.002
M3 after 4.9536 0.66520 57.3731 7.66478
Area 4
M4 before 5.8797 0.76449 0.006 83.3122 10.46677 0.000
M4 after 4.9994 0.65204 58.3411 8.23727
Area 5
M5 before 3.5303 0.47002 0.374 61.1558 7.60999 0.000
M5 after 3.4028 0.46997 43.5783 5.97066
Area 6
M6 before 4.1442 0.56487 0.037 67.1547 8.69758 0.000
M6 after 3.5764 0.48208 44.2694 6.21012
Area 7
M7 before 21.7589 0.83766 0.042 310.7022 12.54486 0.528
M7 after 23.8769 1.22292 326.8172 20.43892
Area 8
M8 before 26.9903 0.67276 0.823 390.4375 12.07008 0.032
M8 after 26.7819 0.97526 350.5539 19.75618
G. Nicol et al.
Fig. 4. The results of MPP and PTI are displayed in
Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5.
3.1 Walking gait: horse saddle mat
Comparing the flocking materials whilst the horse walked,
areas 1 and 2 represent the pressures exerted on the back left
and right side of the horse’s back. In area 1 (left back), the
MPP and the PTI were both found to be lower following
conversion of the saddle to that of air flocking. There was a
statistical difference in PTI with a reduction of 22.8 kPa s,
which is equal to a reduction of 27.9 %, following conver-
sion to air flocking. There were no statistically significant
differences in area 2 (right back) for either MPP or PTI.
In areas 3 and 4, which represent the left and right front
of the saddle, respectively, over the wither region, the MPP
and the PTI recorded are higher for the wool flocking
material than that of the air flocking. The difference in
MPP was not statistically significant; however, a statistical
difference was recorded in both areas 3 and 4 when
examining PTI. In area 3, the PTI was reduced by 22.2 %
from 73.78 to 57.4 kPa s and in area 4 the PTI was reduced
by 30 % from 83.31 to 58.34 kPa s.
In areas 5 and 6, which, respectively, examined the
region covering the left and right shoulders of the horse, a
larger MPP and PTI were again recorded using the wool
flocking material. This was discovered to be statistically
significant when looking at the PTI in both of these areas.
In area 6, the PTI reduced by 34 % from 67.15 to
43.58 kPa s, in area 5 it reduced by 28.78 % from 61.15 to
43.58 kPa s.
3.2 Walking gait: rider saddle mat
There was little variation and no statistically significant
differences when comparing the MPP and PTI exerted on
the rider whilst at a walk. This possibly resulted from
minimal movement encountered by the region of the rider
in contact with the saddle during the walking gait.
3.3 Trotting gait: horse saddle mat
There was no significant difference in area 1 for either MPP
or PTI. In area 2, however, there was an unexpected increase
in both MPP and PTI following conversion to air flocking.
The MPP increased by 16.6 % from 5.13 to 5.98 kPa and the
PTI increased by 14.3 % from 35.3 to 40.32 kPa s.
In areas 3, 4, 5, and 6, the MPP and PTI were found to
be lower following conversion to air flocking. This was
statistically significant for both MPP and PTI in all but area
4 where the MPP was not shown to be significant. In area 3,
the MPP reduced by 22.4 % and the PTI by 27 %, in area 4
the Mean PTI reduced by 15 %, in area 5 the MPP reduced
by 11.9 % and the PTI reduced by 21.4 %. In area 6 the
MPP reduced by 17.4 % and the PTI reduced by 29.5 %.
3.4 Trotting gait: rider saddle mat
There was no statistically significant difference in MPP
exerted on the rider whilst trotting using both flocking
Table 3 Analysis by trotting: mean peak pressure (kPa)/mean
pressure–time integral (kPa s)
Mean peak pressure (kPa) Mean pressure–time integral
(kPa s)
Mean Std.
error
mean
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean Std.
error
mean
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Area 1
M1
before
4.7628 0.45465 0.816 32.4074 3.05622 0.961
M1
after
4.7163 0.41826 32.3464 2.79746
Area 2
M2
before
5.13 0.460 0.000 35.2658 3.16246 0.000
M2
after
5.98 0.511 40.3182 3.48190
Area 3
M3
before
7.3669 0.66739 0.000 54.3101 4.87581 0.000
M3
after
5.7176 0.50570 39.6488 3.45386
Area 4
M4
before
6.6954 0.58954 0.051 51.2210 4.62337 0.000
M4
after
6.2964 0.56699 43.5343 3.85258
Area 5
M5
before
5.8969 0.52395 0.000 47.4756 4.22926 0.000
M5
after
5.1969 0.45688 37.3167 3.28158
Area 6
M6
before
6.6782 0.60384 0.000 52.5281 4.76171 0.000
M6
after
5.5149 0.50220 37.0404 3.29962
Area 7
M7
before
12.3151 0.90595 0.723 89.9746 7.45553 0.124
M7
after
11.9151 0.66391 103.5171 6.02555
Area 8
M8
before
12.9107 0.53843 0.006 92.1035 4.96025 0.001
M8
after
14.2186 0.41520 107.9172 3.97594
Dynamic pressure effect on horse and horse rider
materials. However, when examining the PTI, the recorded
air flocking data showed an increase in pressure on both sides
of the saddle that were in contact with the rider. This was
found to be significant on the right side of the saddle but not
the left. On the right side, the PTI increased from 92.1 to
107.9 kPa s. During this particular gait, both the MPP and
PTI tended to increase following conversion to air flocking.
3.5 Sitting-trotting gait: horse saddle mat
The MPP whilst sitting-trotting was reduced in all saddle
mat areas except area 2 after conversion to air flocking.
However, there were only statistically significant differ-
ences present in areas 3 and 6 which represented the left
front of the saddle and shoulder region of the horse,
respectively. In area 3, the MPP reduced by 16 % and in
area 6 the MPP reduced by 20.7 %.
A similar pattern was discovered when examining the
PTI exerted on the horse, although a statistically significant
reduction was found using the air flocking in areas 3
(16.8 %), 5 (11.3 %) and 6 (24.2 %) representing the front
left region of the saddle and also both the right and left
horse shoulder regions. In region 3, the PTI reduced by
16.8 %, and in region 5 and 6 the PTI reduced by 11.3 and
24.2 %, respectively.
3.6 Sitting-trotting gait: rider saddle mat
There was an increase in MPP exerted on the right side of
the rider following conversion to air flocking but this was
not statistically significant. A clear increase in PTI was
displayed with the air flocking; unfortunately, a statistical
significance could not be displayed.
3.7 Cantering gait: horse saddle mat
During cantering it was found that air flocking resulted in a
statistically significantly reduction in MPP in areas 1, 3, 4, 5
and 6. The largest difference was seen in area 3 where the
MPP reduced from 7.75 to 5.79 kPa. This is a reduction of
25.3 % in the MPP being exerted over the left front of the
saddle onto the horse; reductions in the other areas in contact
with the saddle were also dramatic. There was a reduction in
pressure of 15.7 % in area 1, 13.6 % in area 4, 21.7 % in area
Table 4 Analysis by sitting
trotting: mean peak pressure
(kPa)/mean pressure–time
integral (kPa s)
Mean peak pressure (kPa) Mean pressure–time integral (kPa s)
Mean Std. error
mean
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean Std. error
mean
Sig. (2-tailed)
Area 1
M1 before 4.9883 0.65158 0.963 34.4933 4.55531 0.226
M1 after 4.9775 0.61315 36.7217 4.50949
Area 2
M2 before 6.07 0.761 0.075 41.4725 5.22153 0.067
M2 after 6.71 0.868 46.7122 6.13400
Area 3
M3 before 5.8561 0.70834 0.000 44.9286 5.51541 0.001
M3 after 4.9197 0.62336 37.3903 4.68363
Area 4
M4 before 6.2742 0.77254 0.673 48.4931 5.90622 0.077
M4 after 6.1225 0.81742 43.7583 5.77986
Area 5
M5 before 4.4681 0.55228 0.906 38.5369 4.77251 0.005
M5 after 4.4447 0.56837 34.1931 4.26517
Area 6
M6 before 5.6475 0.71575 0.000 44.2422 5.46711 0.000
M6 after 4.4789 0.57297 33.5572 4.28100
Area 7
M7 before 16.9556 1.56942 0.996 118.4442 11.51805 0.127
M7 after 16.9442 1.72090 144.7481 12.65941
Area 8
M8 before 18.5767 1.02519 0.288 132.9239 8.82104 0.014
M8 after 19.4800 0.84210 148.5333 6.99723
G. Nicol et al.
5 and 22.7 % in area 6. When examining the PTI a statistical
difference was found in areas 3, 4, 5 and 6. The largest
reduction in PTI was displayed in area 6 with a reduction
from 44.45 to 31.42 kPa s; this is a reduction of 29.3 % in the
PTI exerted on the horse’s right shoulder whilst cantering
using a saddle with air flocking as opposed to wool flocking.
In area 3, the area where there was the largest fall in MPP, the
reduction in PTI was 26.6 %. In area 4, there was a reduction
of 17.4 % and in the left horse shoulder region (region 5)
there was a reduction of 26 %.
3.8 Cantering gait: rider saddle mat
The MPP exerted on the left side of the rider whilst cantering
increased from 19.7 to 24.0 kPa following conversion to air
flocking which was found to be statistically significantly.
This was an increase of 21.9 % in MPP exerted on the rider.
There was no significant difference on the right side. The PTI
exerted on the rider whilst cantering increased following
saddle conversion. There was a clear increase in PTI recor-
ded affecting both sides of the rider; however, this was only
found to be statistically significant on the left side, where the
PTI increased by 22 % following conversion.
3.9 Horse rider preference
All riders preferred the wool flocking. Reasons for this
included: riders felt they had lost some of the close contact
and interaction with the horse, and felt that when they were
giving instructions, there was a delay in the communication
of this information to the horse. Riders also commented on
the saddle feeling very soft and at times unstable and they
experienced a ‘‘kick back’’ from the saddle when signifi-
cant contact was made.
4 Discussion
This research has discovered air flocked saddles exert less
pressure on the horse, however, it causes an increase in the
pressures exerted on the rider. The peak pressure and PTI are
although similar when examining different gaits, a larger
difference was noted between the two flocking materials
when studying the PTI. This suggests that not only was there
a change in the pressure exerted on both horse and rider but
the flocking material also altered the contact time over which
these pressures were exerted. If the impact pressures
encountered during riding are applied repetitively for long
periods of time they may lead to injuries, including joint
degeneration, lower back pain and stress fractures [1, 2].
The study raised a dilemma as the pressure exerted on
the horse was shown to be significantly less particularly
during cantering. However, during the same gait the pres-
sure exerted on the rider was shown to increase by 21.9 %
in MPP and 22 % in PTI. This increase may as a conse-
quence result in the rider sustaining injury over a long
period of time. Although this area of research is at an early
stage, it raises the question ‘‘should a rider use a saddle to
reduce the pressure exerted on the horse or should the
saddle reduce the pressure exerted on the rider?’’
Table 5 Analysis by cantering: mean peak pressure (kPa)/mean
pressure–time integral (kPa s)
Mean peak pressure (kPa) Mean pressure–time integral
(kPa s)
Mean Std.
error
mean
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean Std.
error
mean
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Area 1
M1
before
6.5044 0.60081 0.000 35.0711 3.12375 0.017
M1
after
5.4801 0.47875 32.7360 2.84204
Area 2
M2
before
6.70 0.604 0.870 35.9597 3.16813 0.025
M2
after
6.74 0.583 38.7213 3.34016
Area 3
M3
before
7.7483 0.68802 0.000 45.3896 3.91972 0.000
M3
after
5.7932 0.50683 33.2967 2.92531
Area 4
M4
before
7.5117 0.65543 0.000 43.1775 3.81286 0.000
M4
after
6.4871 0.58379 35.6732 3.14875
Area 5
M5
before
6.9965 0.63051 0.000 42.1646 3.71576 0.000
M5
after
5.4746 0.48101 31.1813 2.71160
Area 6
M6
before
7.5869 0.68340 0.000 44.4544 3.99341 0.000
M6
after
5.8626 0.52795 31.4168 2.75062
Area 7
M7
before
19.3632 1.04990 0.113 99.0065 6.09693 0.035
M7
after
17.3554 0.73665 115.3397 5.52033
Area 8
M8
before
19.6936 1.07222 0.000 99.5668 6.00973 0.000
M8
after
24.0158 1.18244 132.7431 6.55051
Dynamic pressure effect on horse and horse rider
Many of the results obtained display a statistically sig-
nificant difference. Although no study has been carried out to
determine how large the difference in pressures exerted must
be to equate to an injury occurring with one flocking material
but not the other, this study has shown that the pressure
exerted on the horse is significantly less using air flocking
with a reduction in MPP by up to 25.3 % and a reduction in
PTI by up to 26.6 % whilst cantering. Due to the scale of this
reduction, this may represent the difference between injuries
occurring to the horse’s back and other joints.
One explanation for the recorded increase in pressure
exerted on the rider following conversion to air flocking is
that whilst riding, it was frequently noted that riders felt they
had ‘‘lost some of the feeling of the horse below them’’ and
for this reason they may have subconsciously increased the
pressure they exerted through their seat and less through the
stirrups in an act to maintain horse response.
The information gathered from this study will hopefully
help in the future when examining further studies and also
encourage further research into the understanding of the shock
attenuation properties of different saddle flocking materials.
As a result this will hopefully allow the optimum materials for
saddle manufacture to be discovered in the hope of avoiding
preventable injury’s occurring to both horse and jockey.
References
1. Tsirikos A, Papagelopoulos PJ, Giannakopoulos PN, Boscainos
PJ, Zoubos AB, Kasseta M, Nikiforidis PA, Korres DS (2001)
Degenerative spondyloarthropathy of the cervical and lumbar
spine in jockeys. Orthopedics 24(6):24561–24564
2. Whittle MW (1999) Generation and attenuation of transient
impulsive forces beneath the foot: a review. Gait Posture
10:267–275
3. Harman JC (1997) Measurement of the pressures exerted by
saddles on the horse’s back using a computerized pressure mea-
suring device. Pferdeheilkunde 13:129–134
4. De Cocq P, van Weeren PR, Back W (2006) Saddle pressure
measuring: validity, reliability and power to discriminate between
different saddle-fits. Vet J 172:267–273
5. Clayton HM, Lanovaz JL, Schamhardt HC, Wessum R (1999)
The effects of a rider’s mass on ground reaction forces and fet-
lock kinematics at the trot. Equine Vet J 31:218–221. doi:10.
1111/j.2042-3306.1999.tb05221.x
6. De Cocq P, van Weeren PR, Back W (2004) Effects of girth,
saddle and weight on movements of the horse. Equine Vet J
36(8):758–763. doi:10.2746/0425164044848000
7. Fruehwirth B, Peham C, Scheidl M, Schobesberger H (2004)
Evaluation of pressure distribution under an English saddle at
walk, trot and canter. Equine Vet J 36:754–757. doi:10.2746/
0426/0425164044848235
8. Faber M, Johnston C, Schamhardt HC, van Weere PR, Roepstorff
L, Barneveld A (2001) Three dimensional Kinematics of the
equine spine during canter. Equine Vet J Suppl. 33:145–149.
doi:10.1111/j.2042-3306.2001.tb05378.x
9. Townsend HGG, Leach DH, Fretz PB (1983) Kinematics of the
equine thoracolumbar spine. Equine Vet J 15(2):117–122. doi:10.
1111/j.2042-3306.1983.tb01732.x
10. Peham C, Licka T, Kapaum M, Scheidl M (2001) A new method
to quantify harmony of the horse-rider system in dressage. Sports
Eng J 30:412–415
11. Garg R (2007) Normal pressure values and the repeatability of
the Pliance system. MCh Orth dissertation, University of Dundee,
June 2007
12. Chahal PS (2009) Does cost matter? The evaluation of different
professional bicycle saddles. MCh Orth dissertation, University
of Dundee, June 2009
G. Nicol et al.
Recommended
