The impact of horseback rider laterality on riding position
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Correct riding position in the saddle is essential for effective horse-rider communication. This study investigated if rider laterality – the preference for using one side of the body over the other – had an impact on rider position. Twenty-five female riders were assessed for handedness, leg dominance (via three motor tasks) and leg length. They rode their own horse at the halt, walk, trot and canter while being video recorded from the left, right and rear views. A total of 137 still frames per rider were captured and analysed using Kinovea software to measure the deviation of head, torso, leg, knee, shoulder, hip and heel angles from an ideal reference angle. Correlations determined associations between laterality and position. A significant association was found between dominant hand and leg ( ) where right-handed riders were often right-leg dominant and left-handed riders were left-leg dominant. Left-handed riders showed more symmetrical positions, while right-handed and right-leg dominant riders leaned their torso farther forward, particularly when viewed from the left side, suggesting they twist their upper bodies to the right. However, left-hand and left-leg dominant riders rode with their left heel pushed further down than right-hand and right-leg dominant riders ( , ). Longer leg lengths were associated with tilting the head ( ) and hips ( ) to the left at multiple gaits, and with shoulders leaning farther to the right at the canter ( ). Riders who rode more frequently had leg ( ) and knee angles ( ) closer to the ideal. These results demonstrate that rider laterality has an influence on rider position and contributes to postural asymmetry. Training approaches should be more personalised based on individual laterality and asymmetry to ensure proper communication between the horse and rider.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".