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 / Effects of jockey position and surfaces on horse movement as...
PloS one2025; 20(5); e0324753; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324753

Effects of jockey position and surfaces on horse movement asymmetry and horse-jockey synchronisation during trotting exercise.

Abstract: Racehorses and jockeys can incur injuries, not only during gallops, but also during routine trotting exercise to access gallop tracks or warm-up. Understanding how jockey position affects racehorse movement may influence safety, and this may vary across different surface conditions. This study used inertial sensing technology (XSens MTw sensors) and linear mixed models to quantify and determine the significance (p ≤ 0.05) of jockey riding position ('rising' versus 'two-point seat') and surface type (artificial, grass and tarmac) on: 1) time offsets between stance and flight phases; 2) horses' vertical upper body movement asymmetry and 3) time lags (in % of stride time) between horse and jockey maximum and minimum vertical displacements. Six ex-racehorses were recruited on a convenience basis from the British Racing School and were ridden by one jockey. Surface type did not significantly influence timings between the stance and flight phases or horse asymmetry. Jockey riding position was linked to a 1.8% difference in stance phase offsets (p < 0.001) and 0.9% difference in flight phases (p = 0.015) for two-point seat versus rising trot. Jockey riding position also affected horse movement asymmetry at the poll across stance phases (weight bearing asymmetry, p = 0.005) and symmetry at the withers and sacrum across flight phases (push-off asymmetry, p < 0.001). In rising trot, the jockey reduced poll asymmetry around the seated stance phase, but increased withers and sacrum push-off asymmetries after the seated stance phase. Time-offsets between the horse and jockey minimum and maximum displacements around stance and flight phases, respectively, were also significantly affected by jockey riding position (all p < 0.001). As the jockey stood up in their stirrups at stance, in either the rising component of rising trot or in the two-point seat, their delay in following the horse's movements increased by 2.8-4.5%, compared to when they were seated (p < 0.001). There was also an increased delay of the jockey by 0.6-0.8% around stance on tarmac compared to on the artificial surface (p ≤ 0.019). During flight phases, jockey displacement maximums were reached 5.5-7.0% and 9.3-11% after the horse following the seated stance in rising trot and during two-point seat, respectively, but jockey movements preceded horse movements around the post-standing flight phases by 4.9-7.3% in rising trot. In summary, jockey position had a greater impact on horse movement asymmetry and horse-jockey synchronisation than surface type. However, further work is required to relate study outcomes to injury risk.
Copyright: © 2025 Horan, Pfau. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-06-02 PubMed ID: 40455846PubMed Central: PMC12129221DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324753Google 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.

The study investigates how jockey position and different surfaces impact horse movement and the synchronization of horse and jockey during trotting exercise. It primarily found that the jockey’s position had a greater effect on these parameters than the type of surface they were on.

Methodology

  • This study used sophisticated sensing technology (XSense MTw sensors) to quantify variations in jockey’s position and surface type on various parameters of horse trotting. The parameters included the time offsets between stance and flight phases, vertical body asymmetry of the horse, and time lags between the horse and jockey’s vertical displacements.
  • Two specific riding positions were considered – ‘rising trot’ and ‘two-point seat’.
  • Three different types of flooring surfaces were also studied: artificial surface, grass, and tarmac.
  • Six retired racehorses, sourced from the British Racing School, participated in the experiment. One jockey rode all six horses during the experiment.

Findings

  • The study found that the type of surface did not significantly influence the timings between the stance and flight phases or the asymmetry of the horse’s movement.
  • However, the jockey’s riding position did demonstrate a significant impact on these parameters. Specifically, in a ‘two-point seat’ position versus a ‘rising trot,’ the jockey’s position resulted in a 1.8% difference in stance phase offsets and a 0.9% difference in flight phases.
  • The jockey’s position was also found to affect the horse’s movement asymmetry at the poll (the highest point on a horse’s neck, immediately behind the ears) during the stance phases and the symmetry at the withers (the ridge between the shoulder blades) and sacrum (the bone at the base of the lower back) during flight phases.
  • In the ‘rising trot’ position, the jockey reduced asymmetry around the seated stance phase but increased asymmetries after the seated stance phase.
  • When the jockey stood up in their stirrups during stance, in either the ‘rising’ component of the ‘rising trot’ or in the ‘two-point seat,’ there was an increase of 2.8-4.5% delay in following the horse’s movements compared to when they were seated.
  • A slight increase in delay was also noticed when the jockey was trotting on tarmac compared to the artificial surface.
  • The jockey’s vertical displacement maximums were reached after the horse following the seated stance in both trotting positions, but their movements preceded horse movements around the post-standing flight phases in rising trot.

Conclusion

  • In conclusion, this study indicated that the jockey’s position, rather than surface type, had a more significant impact on the horse’s movement asymmetry and horse-jockey synchronisation during trotting.
  • However, the researchers noted that more work is needed to associate the findings of the study with injury risk to the horses and jockeys.

Cite This Article

APA
Horan K, Pfau T. (2025). Effects of jockey position and surfaces on horse movement asymmetry and horse-jockey synchronisation during trotting exercise. PLoS One, 20(5), e0324753. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324753

Publication

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
NlmUniqueID: 101285081
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 20
Issue: 5
Pages: e0324753

Researcher Affiliations

Horan, Kate
  • The Royal Veterinary College, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom.
Pfau, Thilo
  • The Royal Veterinary College, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom.
  • University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Biomechanical Phenomena
  • Horses / physiology
  • Movement / physiology
  • Physical Conditioning, Animal
  • Sports

Conflict of Interest Statement

I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: TP is the co-owner of Equigait, a provider of gait analysis products and services. This does not alter our adherence to all polices on sharing data and materials.

References

This article includes 53 references
  1. Setterbo JJ, Garcia TC, Campbell IP, Reese JL, Morgan JM, Kim SY. Hoof accelerations and ground reaction forces of Thoroughbred racehorses measured on dirt, synthetic, and turf track surfaces.. Am J Vet Res 2009;70(10):1220–9.
    doi: 10.2460/ajvr.70.10.1220pubmed: 19795936google scholar: lookup
  2. Chateau H, Holden L, Robin D, Falala S, Pourcelot P, Estoup P. Biomechanical analysis of hoof landing and stride parameters in harness trotter horses running on different tracks of a sand beach (from wet to dry) and on an asphalt road.. Equine Vet J Suppl 2010;(38):488–95.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2010.00277.xpubmed: 21059050google scholar: lookup
  3. Barstow A, Bailey J, Campbell J, Harris C, Weller R, Pfau T. Does “hacking” surface type affect equine forelimb foot placement, movement symmetry or hoof impact deceleration during ridden walk and trot exercise?. Equine Vet J 2019;51(1):108–14.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12952pubmed: 29665054google scholar: lookup
  4. Horan K, Coburn J, Kourdache K, Day P, Carnall H, Brinkley L. Hoof Impact and Foot-Off Accelerations in Galloping Thoroughbred Racehorses Trialling Eight Shoe-Surface Combinations.. Animals (Basel) 2022;12(17):2161.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12172161pmc: PMC9454475pubmed: 36077882google scholar: lookup
  5. Horan K, Coburn J, Kourdache K, Day P, Harborne D, Brinkley L. Influence of speed, ground surface and shoeing condition on hoof breakover duration in galloping Thoroughbred racehorses.. Animals (Basel) 2021;11(9):2588.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11092588pmc: PMC8472780pubmed: 34573553google scholar: lookup
  6. Crevier-Denoix N, Falala S, Holden-Douilly L, Camus M, Martino J, Ravary-Plumioen B. Comparative kinematic analysis of the leading and trailing forelimbs of horses cantering on a turf and a synthetic surface.. Equine Vet J Suppl 2013;(45):54–61.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12160pubmed: 24304405google scholar: lookup
  7. Crevier-Denoix N, Pourcelot P, Holden-Douilly L, Camus M, Falala S, Ravary-Plumioën B. Discrimination of two equine racing surfaces based on forelimb dynamic and hoof kinematic variables at the canter.. Vet J 2013;198(Suppl 1):e124–9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.09.046pubmed: 24360756google scholar: lookup
  8. Arthur R. Comparison of racing fatality rates on dirt, synthetic, and turf at four California racetracks.. AAEP Proc 2010;56:405–8.
  9. Henley WE, Rogers K, Harkins L, Wood JLN. A comparison of survival models for assessing risk of racehorse fatality.. Prev Vet Med 2006;74(1):3–20.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2006.01.003pubmed: 16546277google scholar: lookup
  10. Parkin TDH, Clegg PD, French NP, Proudman CJ, Riggs CM, Singer ER. Race- and course-level risk factors for fatal distal limb fracture in racing Thoroughbreds.. Equine Vet J 2004;36(6):521–6.
    doi: 10.2746/0425164044877332pubmed: 15460077google scholar: lookup
  11. Williams RB, Harkins LS, Hammond CJ, Wood JL. Racehorse injuries, clinical problems and fatalities recorded on British racecourses from flat racing and National Hunt racing during 1996, 1997 and 1998.. Equine Vet J 2001;33(5):478–86.
    doi: 10.2746/042516401776254808pubmed: 11558743google scholar: lookup
  12. Peterson M, Sanderson W, Kussainov N, Hobbs SJ, Miles P, Scollay MC. Effects of racing surface and turn radius on fatal limb fractures in Thoroughbred racehorses.. Sustainability 2021;13(2):539.
    doi: 10.3390/sጂ0539google scholar: lookup
  13. Hitchens PL, Morrice-West AV, Stevenson MA, Whitton RC. Meta-analysis of risk factors for racehorse catastrophic musculoskeletal injury in flat racing.. Vet J 2019;245:29–40.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2018.11.014pubmed: 30819423google scholar: lookup
  14. Horan K, Kourdache K, Coburn J, Day P, Carnall H, Harborne D. The effect of horseshoes and surfaces on horse and jockey centre of mass displacements at gallop.. PLoS One 2021;16(11):e0257820.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257820pmc: PMC8610270pubmed: 34813584google scholar: lookup
  15. Clayton HM, Hobbs S-J. The role of biomechanical analysis of horse and rider in equitation science.. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2017;190:123–32.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2017.02.011google scholar: lookup
  16. Nemecek P, Cabell L, Janura M. Horse and rider interaction during simulated horse jumping.. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 2018;70:26–31.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2018.07.001google scholar: lookup
  17. Donaldson MC, Holter AM, Neuhoff S, Arnosky JA, Simpson BW, Vernon K. The translation of movement from the equine to rider with relevance for hippotherapy.. J Equine Vet Sci 2019;77:125–31.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2019.02.017pubmed: 31133306google scholar: lookup
  18. Horan K, Coburn J, Kourdache K, Day P, Carnall H, Brinkley L. Hoof slip duration at impact in galloping Thoroughbred horses trialling eight shoe‐surface combinations.. Equine Veterinary Journal 2023;55(S58):12–12.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.15_13972google scholar: lookup
  19. Day P, Collins L, Horan K, Weller R, Pfau T. The effect of tungsten road nails on upper body movement asymmetry in horses trotting on tarmac.. J Equine Vet Sci 2020;90:103000.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2020.103000pubmed: 32534777google scholar: lookup
  20. Hitchens PL, Hill AE, Stover SM. Jockey falls, injuries, and fatalities associated with Thoroughbred and quarter horse racing in California, 2007-2011.. Orthop J Sports Med 2013;1(1):2325967113492625.
    doi: 10.1177/2325967113492625pmc: PMC4555501pubmed: 26535231google scholar: lookup
  21. Peham C, Licka T, Kapaun M, Scheidl M. A new method to quantify harmony of the horse-rider system in dressage.. Sports Eng 2001;4(2):95–101.
    doi: 10.1046/j.1460-2687.2001.00077.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  22. Münz A, Eckardt F, Witte K. Horse-rider interaction in dressage riding.. Hum Mov Sci 2014;33:227–37.
    doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2013.09.003pubmed: 24290612google scholar: lookup
  23. Wolframm IA, Bosga J, Meulenbroek RGJ. Coordination dynamics in horse-rider dyads.. Hum Mov Sci 2013;32(1):157–70.
    doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2012.11.002pubmed: 23290116google scholar: lookup
  24. Pfau T, Spence A, Starke S, Ferrari M, Wilson A. Modern riding style improves horse racing times.. Science 2009;325(5938):289.
    doi: 10.1126/science.1174605pubmed: 19608909google scholar: lookup
  25. Viry S, Sleimen-Malkoun R, Temprado J-J, Frances J-P, Berton E, Laurent M. Patterns of horse-rider coordination during endurance race: a dynamical system approach.. PLoS One 2013;8(8):e71804.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071804pmc: PMC3733789pubmed: 23940788google scholar: lookup
  26. Viry S, De Graaf JB, Frances J-P, Berton E, Laurent M, Nicol C. Combined influence of expertise and fatigue on riding strategy and horse–rider coupling during the time course of endurance races.. Equine Vet J 2015;47(1):78–82.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12236pubmed: 25679022google scholar: lookup
  27. Horan K, Price H, Day P, Mackechnie-Guire R, Pfau T. Timing differences in stride cycle phases in retired racehorses ridden in rising and two-point seat positions at trot on turf, artificial and tarmac surfaces.. Animals 2023;13:1–20.
    pmc: PMC10451298pubmed: 37627354
  28. Pfau T, Witte TH, Wilson AM. A method for deriving displacement data during cyclical movement using an inertial sensor.. J Exp Biol 2005;208(Pt 13):2503–14.
    doi: 10.1242/jeb.01658pubmed: 15961737google scholar: lookup
  29. Warner SM, Koch TO, Pfau T. Inertial sensors for assessment of back movement in horses during locomotion over ground.. Equine Vet J Suppl 2010;(38):417–24.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2010.00200.xpubmed: 21059039google scholar: lookup
  30. Starke SD, Witte TH, May SA, Pfau T. Accuracy and precision of hind limb foot contact timings of horses determined using a pelvis-mounted inertial measurement unit.. J Biomech 2012;45(8):1522–8.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.03.014pubmed: 22483227google scholar: lookup
  31. Starke SD, Willems E, May SA, Pfau T. Vertical head and trunk movement adaptations of sound horses trotting in a circle on a hard surface.. Vet J 2012;193(1):73–80.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.10.019pubmed: 22104508google scholar: lookup
  32. Keegan KG, MacAllister CG, Wilson DA, Gedon CA, Kramer J, Yonezawa Y. Comparison of an inertial sensor system with a stationary force plate for evaluation of horses with bilateral forelimb lameness.. Am J Vet Res 2012;73(3):368–74.
    doi: 10.2460/ajvr.73.3.368pubmed: 22369528google scholar: lookup
  33. Bell RP, Reed SK, Schoonover MJ, Whitfield CT, Yonezawa Y, Maki H. Associations of force plate and body-mounted inertial sensor measurements for identification of hind limb lameness in horses.. Am J Vet Res 2016;77(4):337–45.
    doi: 10.2460/ajvr.77.4.337pubmed: 27027831google scholar: lookup
  34. Witte TH, Hirst CV, Wilson AM. Effect of speed on stride parameters in racehorses at gallop in field conditions.. J Exp Biol 2006;209(Pt 21):4389–97.
    doi: 10.1242/jeb.02518pubmed: 17050854google scholar: lookup
  35. Egenvall A, Tranquille CA, Lönnell AC, Bitschnau C, Oomen A, Hernlund E. Days-lost to training and competition in relation to workload in 263 elite show-jumping horses in four European countries.. Prev Vet Med 2013;112(3–4):387–400.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.09.013pubmed: 24125697google scholar: lookup
  36. Murray RC, Walters J, Snart H, Dyson S, Parkin T. How do features of dressage arenas influence training surface properties which are potentially associated with lameness?. Vet J 2010;186(2):172–9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.04.026pubmed: 20888276google scholar: lookup
  37. Murray RC, Walters JM, Snart H, Dyson SJ, Parkin TDH. Identification of risk factors for lameness in dressage horses.. Vet J 2010;184(1):27–36.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.03.020pubmed: 19369100google scholar: lookup
  38. Barstow A, Bailey J, Campbell J, Harris C, Weller R, Pfau T. Does “hacking” surface type affect equine forelimb foot placement, movement symmetry or hoof impact deceleration during ridden walk and trot exercise?. Equine Vet J 2019;51(1):108–14.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12952pubmed: 29665054google scholar: lookup
  39. Peham C, Kotschwar AB, Borkenhagen B, Kuhnke S, Molsner J, Baltacis A. A comparison of forces acting on the horse’s back and the stability of the rider’s seat in different positions at the trot.. Vet J 2010;184(1):56–9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.04.007pubmed: 19428275google scholar: lookup
  40. Martin P, Cheze L, Pourcelot P, Desquilbet L, Duray L, Chateau H. Effect of the rider position during rising trot on the horse’s biomechanics (back and trunk kinematics and pressure under the saddle).. J Biomech 2016;49(7):1027–33.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.02.016pubmed: 26947029google scholar: lookup
  41. Murray RC, Mackechnie-Guire R, Fisher M, Fairfax V. Reducing peak pressures under the saddle at thoracic vertebrae 10-13 is associated with alteration in jump kinematics.. CEP 2018;14(4):239–48.
    doi: 10.3920/cep180021google scholar: lookup
  42. Roepstorff L, Egenvall A, Rhodin M, Byström A, Johnston C, van Weeren PR. Kinetics and kinematics of the horse comparing left and right rising trot.. Equine Vet J 2009;41(3):292–6.
    doi: 10.2746/042516409x397127pubmed: 19469238google scholar: lookup
  43. Murphy J, Arkins S. Facial hair whorls (trichoglyphs) and the incidence of motor laterality in the horse.. Behav Processes 2008;79(1):7–12.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2008.03.006pubmed: 18511219google scholar: lookup
  44. Forbes B, Ho W, Parkes RSV, Sepulveda Caviedes MF, Pfau T, Martel DR. Associations between racing Thoroughbred movement asymmetries and racing and training direction.. Animals (Basel) 2024;14(7):1086.
    doi: 10.3390/ani14071086pmc: PMC11011192pubmed: 38612325google scholar: lookup
  45. Lagarde J, Kelso JAS, Peham C, Licka T. Coordination dynamics of the horse-rider system.. J Mot Behav 2005;37(6):418–24.
    doi: 10.3200/JMBR.37.6.418-424pmc: PMC1821095pubmed: 16280312google scholar: lookup
  46. Persson-Sjodin E, Hernlund E, Pfau T, Haubro Andersen P, Rhodin M. Influence of seating styles on head and pelvic vertical movement symmetry in horses ridden at trot.. PLoS One 2018;13(4):e0195341.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195341pmc: PMC5886531pubmed: 29621299google scholar: lookup
  47. Robartes H, Fairhurst H, Pfau T. Head and pelvic movement symmetry in horses during circular motion and in rising trot.. Vet J 2013;198 Suppl 1:e52–8.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.09.033pubmed: 24144771google scholar: lookup
  48. Starke SD, Raistrick KJ, May SA, Pfau T. The effect of trotting speed on the evaluation of subtle lameness in horses.. Vet J 2013;197(2):245–52.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.03.006pubmed: 23611486google scholar: lookup
  49. van Beek FE, de Cocq P, Timmerman M, Muller M. Stirrup forces during horse riding: a comparison between sitting and rising trot.. Vet J 2012;193(1):193–8.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.10.007pubmed: 22100209google scholar: lookup
  50. Maliye S, Marshall JF. Objective assessment of the compensatory effect of clinical hind limb lameness in horses: 37 cases (2011-2014).. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2016;249(8):940–4.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.249.8.940pubmed: 27700267google scholar: lookup
  51. Maliye S, Voute LC, Marshall JF. Naturally-occurring forelimb lameness in the horse results in significant compensatory load redistribution during trotting.. Vet J 2015;204(2):208–13.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.03.005pubmed: 25862395google scholar: lookup
  52. Münz A, Eckardt F, Heipertz-Hengst C, Peham C, Witte K. A preliminary study of an inertial sensor-based method for the assessment of human pelvis kinematics in dressage riding.. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 2013;33(11):950–5.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2013.02.002google scholar: lookup
  53. Horan K, Kourdache K, Coburn J, Day P, Brinkley L, Carnall H. Jockey perception of shoe and surface effects on hoof-ground interactions and implications for safety in the galloping Thoroughbred racehorse.. J Equine Vet Sci 2021;97:103327.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2020.103327pubmed: 33478759google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.