The effect of choice on horse behaviour, heart rate and heart rate variability during human-horse touch interactions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Touch interaction between humans and horses is a feature common to almost all equine-assisted services (EAS) although less is known about how horses perceive this tactile stimulation during human-horse interactions. The current study assessed the effect of three types of touching (patting, stroking, scratching) on three anatomical body locations (neck/shoulder, body, hindquarter) of therapy horses (N = 10) on horse behaviour, heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) under forced and free-choice touch treatments. Human participants (25 experienced and 24 less experienced with horses) each interacted individually with four horses in both treatment conditions while in a familiar round pen. During the forced touch treatment, the horse was tethered for the duration of the test (4.5 min) and the participant was instructed to touch each body location with each type of touch, switching every 30 s. During the free-choice touch treatment, the horse was loose in the pen and the participant, standing in the centre, was instructed to touch the horse only if the horse came within arm’s reach. A Generalized Linear Mixed Model with repeated measures examined the effect of treatments, touch type, location and human experience with horses on horse behaviours, HR and HRV. Oral behaviours, restlessness and tail swishing were more frequent, while head shaking behaviour was less frequent during forced than free-choice touch treatments (all p <.0206). Tail swishing was less frequent when touching the hindquarters in comparison to touching the neck/shoulder and body (p <.0001). Free-choice touch treatments resulted in lower odds of high (OR = 0.10, 95% CI (0.05, 0.20)) and even (OR = 0.04, 95% CI (0.03, 0.06)) head positions and higher odds of low head positions (OR = 9.75, 95% CI (7.84, 12.12)) compared to forced touch treatments. Horses were less likely to keep their ears oriented toward the participant during free-choice touch than forced touch treatments (OR = 0.19, 95% (0.15, 0.23)). Horse HR was higher during free-choice touch compared to forced touch treatments (p =.0007). Horse HRV was lower during interaction with experienced than with less experienced participants (p =.0293). The results demonstrated that forced touch treatments were not perceived positively by therapy horses highlighting the importance of providing choice and agency for therapy horses during EAS. The findings could be reflected in the guidelines of therapy horse organizations to minimize human risk of injury and ensure a good life for horses.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».