Compliance or confusion? The usefulness of blindfolding horses as a handling technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blindfolds have commonly been suggested to make horses more tractable in emergency or high-stress situations such as barn fire evacuations or trailer loading. However, little research has been done on the veracity of this claim. Two studies were conducted to examine the impact of blindfolds on ease of handling. In Study 1, 33 riding lesson horses were led from a familiar stall both blindfolded and unblindfolded. In Study 2, 27 of these horses were then led through an obstacle course both blindfolded and unblindfolded that required them to weave through cones, back up through a chute, walk across a tarp and pass through a gate made of pool noodles that brushed their flanks. For both studies, time taken to complete each phase of the test (Study 1: haltering, blindfolding, exiting stall; Study 2: each of the four obstacles) was recorded, as well as heart rate difference from baseline, lead rope pressure and frequency of avoidant or resistant behaviours. Results were analyzed using a mixed model with post-hoc Tukey-Kramer comparisons to investigate the relationship between variables. Generally, blindfolded horses required more time and greater lead rope pressure for handling and displayed higher frequencies of avoidant (p < 0.05) and active refusal behaviour (p < 0.04) in Study 1 and for the cones and backing up obstacles in Study 2. Conversely, when navigating the visually frightening “gate” obstacle in Study 2, blindfolded horses required less time (p = 0.0053) and lead rope pressure (p = 0.0049) and demonstrated fewer avoidant (p < 0.0001) or refusal behaviours (p = 0.0009) than unblindfolded horses. Blindfolded horses showed a greater heart rate increase from baseline while being led in Study 1 (p = 0.0226). Blindfolding did not have an effect on heart rate in Study 2 (p = 0.1672), but horses demonstrated reduced heart rate difference from baseline during their second attempt at the obstacle course regardless of blindfolding status (p < 0.0001). These findings suggest that blindfolding may be a beneficial tool when navigating visually frightening stimuli and time is not a concern. However, in emergency scenarios such as barn fire evacuations, blindfolding is likely to increase lead time and difficulty of handling, which could negatively impact the success of a rescue and put human and animal lives at risk. Future research is required to test the efficacy of blindfolds in a more realistically simulated emergency environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".