FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / PLoS One / An Objective Measure of Noseband Tightness and Its Measureme...
PloS one2017; 12(1); e0168996; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168996

An Objective Measure of Noseband Tightness and Its Measurement Using a Novel Digital Tightness Gauge.

Abstract: Noseband tightness is difficult to assess in horses participating in equestrian sports such as dressage, show jumping and three-day-eventing. There is growing concern that nosebands are commonly tightened to such an extent as to restrict normal equine behaviour and possibly cause injury. In the absence of a clear agreed definition of noseband tightness, a simple model of the equine nose-noseband interface environment was developed in order to guide further studies in this area. The normal force component of the noseband tensile force was identified as the key contributor to sub-noseband tissue compression. The model was used to inform the design of a digital tightness gauge which could reliably measure the normal force component of the noseband tensile force. A digital tightness gauge was developed to measure this parameter under nosebands fitted to bridled horses. Results are presented for field tests using two prototype designs. Prototype version three was used in field trial 1 (n = 15, frontal nasal plane sub-noseband site). Results of this trial were used to develop an ergonomically designed prototype, version 4, which was tested in a second field trial (n = 12, frontal nasal plane and lateral sub-noseband site). Nosebands were set to three tightness settings in each trial as judged by a single rater using an International Society for Equitation Science (ISES) taper gauge. Normal forces in the range 7-95 N were recorded at the frontal nasal plane while a lower range 1-28 N was found at the lateral site for the taper gauge range used in the trials. The digital tightness gauge was found to be simple to use, reliable, and safe and its use did not agitate the animals in any discernable way. A simple six point tightness scale is suggested to aid regulation implementation and the control of noseband tightness using normal force measurement as the objective tightness discriminant.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2017-01-03 PubMed ID: 28045955PubMed Central: PMC5207410DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168996Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research introduces a digital device to quantifiably measure the tightness of a horse’s noseband, a piece of equipment commonly used in equestrian sports. The study intends to address concerns over excessively tightened nosebands potentially impeding normal equine behavior and causing injury.

Background

  • The research begins by recognizing the widespread use of nosebands in equestrian sports and the increasing concerns over their negative impact when excessively tightened.
  • The absence of a clear accepted definition for noseband tightness motivated the researchers to develop a model representing the horse-noseband interaction environment, to guide further studies.
  • Through their model, researchers identified the normal force component (perpendicular force on a surface) of the noseband tensile force (force exerted on the band) as the primary contributor to pressure applied under the noseband.

Development of The Digital Tightness Gauge

  • The information derived from the model was instrumental in developing the digital tightness gauge, a device designed specifically to measure the normal force in the noseband tensile force.
  • Two prototypes of this device were developed for field testing. Field trials included 15 tests on the frontal nasal part of the horse using prototype version three and 12 tests on both the frontal and lateral nasal part using the version four prototype.

Field Testing

  • In each field trial, nosebands were adjusted to three different tightness levels as determined by a single evaluator using a taper gauge, a common tool to measure noseband tightness.
  • In the trials, normal forces in the range of 7-95 N (Newtons) were recorded at the frontal nasal plane, while a lower range of 1-28 N was detected at the lateral site for the taper gauge range applied in the trials.

Evaluation of Digital Tightness Gauge

  • The digital tightness gauge was found to be easy to use, safe, and reliable. It did not cause any noticeable agitation in the tested animals.
  • The researchers propose a simple six-point tightness scale, acquired from using the digital tightness gauge, to assist in regulation implementation and controlling noseband tightness in a more objective manner.

Cite This Article

APA
Doherty O, Conway T, Conway R, Murray G, Casey V. (2017). An Objective Measure of Noseband Tightness and Its Measurement Using a Novel Digital Tightness Gauge. PLoS One, 12(1), e0168996. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168996

Publication

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
NlmUniqueID: 101285081
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 12
Issue: 1
Pages: e0168996

Researcher Affiliations

Doherty, Orla
  • Department of Life Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Conway, Thomas
  • Department of Electronic and Computer Engineering, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Conway, Richard
  • Department of Electronic and Computer Engineering, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Murray, Gerard
  • Aaron Value Adding Services Ltd.,Unit M7, Smithstown Industrial Estate, Shannon, Co.Clare, Ireland.
Casey, Vincent
  • Department of Physics,University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Biomechanical Phenomena
  • Calibration
  • Equipment Design
  • Horses / physiology
  • Physiology / instrumentation
  • Pressure
  • Sample Size
  • Statistics as Topic
  • Tensile Strength
  • Weight-Bearing

Conflict of Interest Statement

GM is owner/director of Aaron Value Adding Services Ltd. The company provides an electronic printed circuit board production and prototyping service. The company manufactured, validated and performed preliminary circuit tests on the digital tightness gauge printed circuit boards used in this project. VC, TC, RC and OD are listed as inventors on a patent application filed with the Irish Patent Office relating to the noseband digital tightness gauge (cited in the manuscript). This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

References

This article includes 29 references
  1. Porter JM, Gyi DE, Tait HA. Interface pressure data and the prediction of driver discomfort in road trials.. Appl Ergon 2003;34(3):207–14.
    doi: 10.1016/S0003-6870(03)00009-7pubmed: 12737920google scholar: lookup
  2. Noordin S, McEwen JA, Kragh JF, Eisen A, Masri BA. Surgical Tourniquets in Orthopaedics.. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:2958–2967.
    doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00634pubmed: 19952261google scholar: lookup
  3. Kragh JF, Walters TJ, Westmoreland T, Miller RM, Mabry RL, Kotwal RS. Tragedy into drama: an american history of tourniquet use in the current war.. J Spec Oper Med 2013;13(3):5–25.
    pubmed: 24048983
  4. O’Muiris E, Guiry JJ, Casey V. Rigid Junctional Tourniquet Effector Heads: Forces, Pressures, and Pressure Gradients Accompanying Target Artery Occlusion.. Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering 2015;35(5):670–676.
    doi: 10.1007/s40846-015-0076-xgoogle scholar: lookup
  5. McLean AN. The positive aspects of correct negative reinforcement.. Anthrozoös 2005;18(3):245–254.
  6. Micklem W. Complete horse riding manual. London: Penguin; 2012.
  7. Muir S, Sly D. The complete horse and rider. London: Anness Publishing Ltd; 2012.
  8. McGreevy PD, Warren-Smith A, Guisard Y. The effect of double bridles and jaw-clamping crank nosebands on temperature of eyes and facial skin of horses.. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 2012;7(3):142–148.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.08.001google scholar: lookup
  9. Pospisil K, Potz I, Peham C. The Effect of Noseband Tightness on Tensile Forces While Using Side Reins on Horses.. Equine Veterinary Journal 2014;46(1):46–47.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12267_142google scholar: lookup
  10. Randle H, McGreevy PD. The effect of noseband tightness on rein tension in the ridden horse.. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 2013;8(2):e18–e19.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2012.12.042google scholar: lookup
  11. Casey V, McGreevy PD, O’Muiris E, Doherty O. A preliminary report on estimating the pressures exerted by a crank noseband in the horse.. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 2013;8(6):479–484.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2013.06.003google scholar: lookup
  12. Fenner K, Yoon S, White P, Starling M, McGreevy PD. The Effect of Noseband Tightening on Horses’ Behavior, Eye Temperature, and Cardiac Responses.. PLoS One 2016;11(5):e0154179.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154179pmc: PMC4854461pubmed: 27140187google scholar: lookup
  13. nISES. In: Position statement and recommendations—Nosebands. International Society for Equitation Science; 2012. Available from: http://www.equitationscience.com/restrictive-nosebands.
  14. nFEI. In: Code of Conduct for the Welfare of the Horse. Fédération Equestre Internationale; 2013. Available from: http://inside.fei.org/system/files/Code_of_Conduct_Welfare_Horse_1Jan2013_0.pdf.
  15. nFEI. In: Dressage Rules. Fédération Equestre Internationale; 2016. Available from: http://www.fei.org/sites/default/files/DRE-Rules_2016_GA-approved_clean.pdf.
  16. Adams RA. Ch11 In: Calculus A Complete Course. 5th ed Toronto: Addison Wesley Longman; 2003.
  17. O’Brien SBG, Casey V. Asymptotic and numerical solutions for a hammocking model.. Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics 2002;55:409–420.
    doi: 10.1093/qjmam/55.3.409google scholar: lookup
  18. nOVAM. In: Sectioned Equine Head. Online Veterinary Anatomy Museum; 2012. Available from: http://www.onlineveterinaryanatomy.net/content/sectioned-equine-head.
  19. nCasey V, Grace P, Clarke-Moloney M. 11 In: Gaetano DG, Alistair M, editors. Pressure Measurement at Biomedical Interfaces. InTech; 2011. p. 243–264. Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/pressure-measurement-at-biomedical-interfaces.
  20. Egenvall A, Eisersiö M, Roepstorff L. Pilot study of behavior responses in young riding horses using 2 methods of making transitions from trot to walk.. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 2012;7(3):157–168.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.08.006google scholar: lookup
  21. Egenvall A, Roepstorff L, Eisersio M, Rhodin M, van Weeren R. Stride-related rein tension patterns in walk and trot in the ridden horse.. Acta Vet Scand 2015;57:89.
    doi: 10.1186/s13028-015-0182-3pmc: PMC4696263pubmed: 26715156google scholar: lookup
  22. Manfredi JM, Rosenstein D, Lanovaz JL, Nauwelaerts S, Clayton HM. Fluoroscopic study of oral behaviours in response to the presence of a bit and the effects of rein tension.. Comparative Exercise Physiology 2009;6(04):143–148.
    doi: 10.1017/S1755254010000036google scholar: lookup
  23. Eisersiö M. How to build a rein tension meter. [Thesis]. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; 2013. Available from: http://stud.epsilon.slu.se.
  24. Casey V, Conway T, Doherty O, Conway R, inventors; University of Limerick, assignee. A tightness gauge for estimating the tightness of a restrictive strap. Irish Patent Office, Number 2016/0142; 2016.
  25. Doherty O, Casey V, McGreevy P, Arkins S. An investigation into noseband tightness levels on competition horses.. 12th International Conference of International Society for Equitation Science 2016. p. 53.
  26. Greenspan JD, McGillis SLB. Stimulus Features Relevant to the Perception of Sharpness and Mechanically Evoked Cutaneous Pain.. Somatosensory & Motor Research 1991;8(2):137–147.
    doi: 10.3109/08990229109144738pubmed: 1887724google scholar: lookup
  27. Ley SJ, Waterman AE, Livingston A. Measurement of mechanical thresholds, plasma cortisol and catecholamines in control and lame cattle: A preliminary study.. Research in Veterinary Science 1996;61(2):172–173.
    doi: 10.1016/S0034-5288(96)90096-Xpubmed: 8880991google scholar: lookup
  28. Welsh EM, Nolan AM. Effect of flunixin meglumine on the thresholds to mechanical stimulation in healthy and lame sheep.. Somatosensory & Motor Research 1995;58(1):61–66.
    pubmed: 7709063
  29. Estebe JP, Le Naoures A, Chemaly L, Ecoffey C. Tourniquet pain in a volunteer study: effect of changes in cuff width and pressure.. Anaesthesia 2000;55(1):21–6.
    doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2000.01128.xpubmed: 10594429google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.