Back to all available

Electromyographic comparison between single and double riding in hippotherapy

kinesiology
biomechanics
rehabilitation

Abstract

Background. Hippotherapy is a rehabilitation method using horses in a biopsychosocial way (health, education, and riding) for individuals with disabilities. Riding a horse in hippotherapy can be performed individually or in pairs (patient plus therapist), considering the practitioner's limitations and treatment objectives. However, little is known about the horse´s abdominal muscle activity during both scenarios, which could affect treatment strategy. This study aimed to analyze the electromyographic activity of the Rectus Abdominis (RA) and External Oblique Abdominis (EOA) muscles in horses employed in hippotherapy, comparing double (2R) and single (1R) riding during a straight-line stride.

Methods. Nine adult horses were employed, with an average weight of 388 kg, and two experienced and physically fit riders (body weights: 50.9 and 51.3 kg) who rode all animals. The electromyographic muscle data were extracted bilaterally with a sampling frequency of 2kHz following Surface Electromyography for the Non-Invasive Muscle (SENIAM) international standards. Data were extracted during a 10-second walk without a rider (WR), single rider (R1), and double riders (R2). Riding type sequences were randomized for all horses. An analysis of variance was conducted using a randomized block design, with each horse being a block, and Tukey's test with 5% significance.

Results. Muscle activity in double riding was higher than WR (RA p=0.004 left; p=0.0 right; EOA p=0.002 left, p =0.012 right) and no difference was found between R1 and WR (RA p=0.359 left, p=0.175 right; EOA p=0.358 left; p=0.232 right) when the rider has up to 14.75% of the horse's weight. Compared to R1(11.19), we observed a pattern of greater effort in R2 (12.8, p=0.037) only in the left EOA, and right RA (10.43, R2-R1 p=0.006; R2-WR p=0.00), possibly associated with compensation of effort in these muscles to keep the horse in a straight line associated with the stimuli of the assistant guide always on the left side, greater weight in R2 (102.2 kg) and movement of two bodies over the animal.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].