The effect of horseshoes and surfaces on horse and jockey centre of mass displacements at gallop.

Horseshoes influence how horses' hooves interact with different ground surfaces, during the impact, loading and push-off phases of a stride cycle. Consequently, they impact on the biomechanics of horses' proximal limb segments and upper body. By implication, different shoe and surface combinations could drive changes in the magnitude and stability of movement patterns in horse-jockey dyads. This study aimed to quantify centre of mass (COM) displacements in horse-jockey dyads galloping on turf and artificial tracks in four shoeing conditions: 1) aluminium; 2) barefoot; 3) GluShu; and 4) steel. Thirteen retired racehorses and two jockeys at the British Racing School were recruited for this intervention study. Tri-axial acceleration data were collected close to the COM for the horse (girth) and jockey (kidney-belt), using iPhones (Apple Inc.) equipped with an iOS app (SensorLog, sample rate = 50 Hz). Shoe-surface combinations were tested in a randomized order and horse-jockey pairings remained constant. Tri-axial acceleration data from gallop runs were filtered using bandpass Butterworth filters with cut-off frequencies of 15 Hz and 1 Hz, then integrated for displacement using Matlab. Peak displacement was assessed in both directions (positive 'maxima', negative 'minima') along the cranio-caudal (CC, positive = forwards), medio-lateral (ML, positive = right) and dorso-ventral (DV, positive = up) axes for all strides with frequency ≥2 Hz (mean = 2.06 Hz). Linear mixed-models determined whether surfaces, shoes or shoe-surface interactions (fixed factors) significantly affected the displacement patterns observed, with day, run and horse-jockey pairs included as random factors; significance was set at p<0.05. Data indicated that surface-type significantly affected peak COM displacements in all directions for the horse (p<0.0005) and for all directions (p≤0.008) but forwards in the jockey. The largest differences were observed in the DV-axis, with an additional 5.7 mm and 2.5 mm of downwards displacement for the horse and jockey, respectively, on the artificial surface. Shoeing condition significantly affected all displacement parameters except ML-axis minima for the horse (p≤0.007), and all displacement parameters for the jockey (p<0.0005). Absolute differences were again largest vertically, with notable similarities amongst displacements from barefoot and aluminium trials compared to GluShu and steel. Shoe-surface interactions affected all but CC-axis minima for the jockey (p≤0.002), but only the ML-axis minima and maxima and DV-axis maxima for the horse (p≤0.008). The results support the idea that hoof-surface interface interventions can significantly affect horse and jockey upper-body displacements. Greater sink of hooves on impact, combined with increased push-off during the propulsive phase, could explain the higher vertical displacements on the artificial track. Variations in distal limb mass associated with shoe-type may drive compensatory COM displacements to minimize the energetic cost of movement. The artificial surface and steel shoes provoked the least CC-axis movement of the jockey, so may promote greatest stability. However, differences between horse and jockey mean displacements indicated DV-axis and CC-axis offsets with compensatory increases and decreases, suggesting the dyad might operate within displacement limits to maintain stability. Further work is needed to relate COM displacements to hoof kinematics and to determine whether there is an optimum configuration of COM displacement to optimise performance and minimise injury.

Introduction

Horseracing is a high-profile and high-risk sport, in which optimising the safety alongside performance of participating horses and jockeys is paramount. The risk of catastrophic musculoskeletal injuries in Thoroughbred flat races is 0.80 per 1000 race starts in the United Kingdom (UK), which compares to a global incidence of 1.17 per 1000 [1]. In addition, racehorse musculoskeletal injury accounts for up to 82% of lost training days lost in the UK [2], with 40% of two-year old horses in race training sustaining a musculoskeletal injury [3]. Extensive coverage of horseracing in the media means these injuries often draw the attention of the public globally, as well as the regulators; for example, the recent high injury rates at racecourses in California [4]. Failure to train and race due to injury also has a significant and detrimental economic impact. Consequently, there is increasing emphasis on proactive interventions to improve training and racing conditions, and prevent injury [5].

Maintaining a harmonious interaction between horse and jockey is one key aspect influencing safety, as biomechanical instabilities are the trigger behind most horse falls and jockey injuries [6]. In racing, a jockey positions themselves off the saddle in a two-point seat and their leg joints flex and extend in a rhythmical manner that aligns with the vertical oscillations of their horse’s trunk [7]. Their body moves only a small amplitude with respect to a world inertial frame and is decoupled from the movements of the horse [8]. The horses’ limbs act in sequence to redirect their centre of mass (COM) [9]. The first footfalls (hindlimbs) accelerate the horse, propelling the COM forwards, and the later ones (forelimbs) decelerate the horse and apply vertical impulse to the COM [10]. Energy is lost during the stance phase of the limbs and is a function of the change in the angle of the COM trajectory [9]. The leading forelimb is thought to be the most important for redirecting the COM, as a result of cranio-caudal (CC) deceleration, vertical acceleration and an increase in potential energy of the COM occurring during the stance phase of this limb [11]. On a stride per stride basis, jockey kinematics adjust to accommodate the changes in translational and rotational upper-body movements of the horse and thereby maintain stability [12]. For example, during stance of the leading hindlimb at gallop, the horse’s trunk and jockey’s pelvis both displace laterally and roll away from the side of this leg [12]. Force data from stirrups indicate that jockeys push away from the stirrup on the non-lead side at this time to maintain the position of their COM close to the horse’s midline and balance themselves [12]. A slight delay in the dorso-ventral (DV) displacement of a jockey’s pelvis occurs relative to the horse, but medio-lateral (ML) movements are in phase [12]. Importantly, as the jockey’s COM moves out of phase with the horse in the CC-axis [8, 12], this is when they are most unstable [12]. It is not known at which point in the stride cycle jockeys are most susceptible to injury, but it is plausible that it would be when displacements peak in the CC-axis.

Although the riding technique employed in racing is metabolically and mechanically costly for the jockey [13-15], increased inertia is detrimental to athletic performance [16] and this technique attenuates the acceleration and deceleration of the jockey in each stride cycle, with respect to a world reference frame. Consequently, it decreases energy expenditure for the horse and can optimize racing speed [8]. In trotting horses, it has been observed that a two-point seat also transfers the lowest and most constant load to a horse’s back [17]. A potential drawback of the two-point seat position is the reduced points of horse-rider contact; a jockey only physically connects with their horse via the reins and their legs. This limits opportunity for tactile information exchange, which is known to play an important role in some equestrian disciplines [18, 19]. However, in racing, a jockey may signal desired alterations to their horse’s biomechanical output by shifting their COM; “rider urging” has been linked to reduced stride length and increased stride frequency [20]. Adjustments to jockey position may additionally influence the patterns and symmetry of horses’ movement, as has been documented in other disciplines [21-23].

To date, objective quantification of horse-rider interactions has tended to focus on equestrian disciplines in which the highest level of coupling between horse and rider movements is desired, for example in dressage [24-27]. Two studies have also explored horse-rider interactions during endurance riding [28, 29], and one study has investigated these in a racing context, using five horses [8]. Data indicate that both gait and ridden seating style are key influences on horse-rider movement patterns and their stability over time. However, there has been little research investigating how extrinsic factors, such as ground surface conditions or farriery interventions, might further influence these interactions, despite the potential implications for performance and injury risk. The interaction between hooves and the surfaces they are galloping over is at the heart of the risk of slippage, fractures and falls. If different properties of the hoof-surface interface alter traction on impact, limb loading rates and push-off forces, then the timing and magnitude—in 3D space—of horse and rider movements could change. Horse falls result from a temporary instability of the horse to support its COM or a failure of the musculoskeletal system due to injury. Jockey injury is, in most cases, due to horse falls [6].

Several epidemiological studies have identified ground surface type as a significant risk factor for injuries to racehorses [e.g. 30–33]. In the UK, most horse races are run on turf but training takes place on both turf and artificial surfaces. Ideally, on landing a surface will permit toe penetration to produce low resistance to shear forces, while also providing enough resistance to support the foot with some slip [34]. Some degree of hoof slip is advantageous for lowering the forces during deceleration [35, 36] and reducing bending moments on the cannon bone [37]. However, excessive hoof slide can predispose to injury, such as tears to the digital flexor muscles [38]. Depending on how hoof-ground interactions influence rider motion, it is possible that the rider may exacerbate the influence of a surface on the loading environment of the equine limb. Equine hoof kinematics have also been related to dynamic surface properties, including hardness, cushioning, responsiveness, grip and uniformity [39]. For example, hoof deceleration on impact in galloping horses shows an inverse relationship with track rebound rate; an effect that allows a smoother transition from stance to propulsion and increases stride efficiency [40]. Lower hoof vibrations, accelerations and ground reaction forces have been found on synthetic surfaces compared to dirt surfaces [41, 42]. In addition, lameness and injury incidents have been linked to the magnitude of impact forces [43, 44], with surface implicated as a trigger factor for altering superficial digital flexor tendon loading and joint kinematics [45].

The influence of shoes on horse kinematics and injury mechanics has received less attention than surfaces. Within racing, the use of horseshoes is tightly regulated in most countries, including the UK. During flat racing, the British Horseracing Authority generally enforces that horses are shod with raceplates [46]: the majority have aluminium raceplates all-round and a smaller number have light steel or a mixture of aluminium (front) and steel (hind); this selection is intended to reduce added load and drag at gallop [47]. In contrast, in non-racing disciplines novel horseshoe materials, styles and innovative shoeing techniques are adopted more rapidly and are successfully used for many horses to influence biomechanical output. Perhaps in racing, horse and jockey safety needs to be considered more carefully before allowing new shoes due to the particularly high risk of injury [48], not only through falls but also through flying horseshoes at high speeds. Epidemiological data suggest certain shoe-types, such as those used in the US with high toe grabs, rims or pads, are associated with a higher risk of racehorse injury [49-52]. Hoof conformation also appears relevant, with long toes and low heels being linked to a greater risk of injury, particularly to the flexor tendons and suspensory ligament [52-54]. Nevertheless, a lack of study on novel versus existing shoe-types means jockeys, horse owners, farriers and veterinarians have been cautious to move away from traditional types, namely aluminium and light-steel. It appears short-sighted not to explore the potential benefits of new shoe and surface combinations.

Outside of racing, plastic shoes and pads made of synthetic rubber have been found to significantly reduce decelerative force and vibration frequency relative to steel shoes on concrete [55-57]. Steel shoes also impose higher maximal vertical forces compared to a barefoot condition [58]. Differences in vertical and breaking forces are likely to alter loading patterns, and thereby alter the duration over which push-up forces are transferred to a rider. Shoe shape is also relevant: for example, rolled toes might smooth breakover [59], eggbar shoes may shift the centre of foot pressure caudally [60] and solar protrusions, such as studs, may alter the balance between slip and grip [61]. Shoe mass is potentially important too, given the alterations to upper-body kinematics imposed on show-jumping horses with weighted boots [62]. Equine locomotor biomechanics, including foot-surface interaction are also influenced by conformation. This means data from horses used in other equestrian disciplines may not be directly transferable to the Thoroughbred racehorse, which is expected to perform on different surfaces at higher speeds and with a typically flat-foot, low heel conformation [63].

This study sought to assess how variations in hoof-ground interaction, imposed by different shoe and surface conditions, influence the COM displacements in galloping racehorse-jockey dyads. We hypothesised that horse movements in 3D space would differ between gallop trials in different shoe and surface conditions and that these differences would be mirrored in jockey movements. We expected movements in the DV and CC axes to show the greatest differences amongst shoe-surface conditions, owing to variability in hoof impact and push-off forces influencing the former and variations in slip duration influencing the latter.

Materials & methods

Ethics

Ethical approval for this intervention study was granted by The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies (R(D)SVS) Veterinary Ethical Review Committee (VERC, reference number 112:19) and the Human Ethical Review Committee (HERC, reference number 387–19) at the University of Edinburgh. The Royal Veterinary College (RVC) Clinical Research Ethical Review Board also approved the study (URN 2018 1841–2). Informed consent was given by the participating jockeys, farriers and horse owners. The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in the PLOS consent form) to publish these case details.

Data collection

Horse-jockey dyads

Retired Thoroughbred ex-racehorses in regular work and utilised for jockey education at the British Racing School (BRS) in Newmarket, UK, provided a convenience sample of thirteen horses for this study. All horses were considered sound by the jockey, farrier and BRS management prior to data collection. They ranged in age from 6–20 years old and had body masses between 421 and 555 kg. Full details on body dimensions and hoof morphometrics are available in [64]. Two jockeys, both with >3 years of professional experience, were available for this study. All horses were ridden in a race exercise saddle. Jockey stirrup lengths varied between 47 and 50% of their leg lengths from the hip down.

Farriery interventions

Each study horse had its hooves trimmed by a farrier according to a standardised trimming protocol to ensure consistent hoof geometry prior to data collection. This meant hoof geometry was always representative of the beginning of a trimming/shoeing cycle. The horses underwent data trials on artificial (Martin Collins Activ-Track) and turf surfaces in the following four shoeing conditions: 1) aluminium raceplates (Kerkhaert Aluminium Kings Super Sound horseshoes; 2) barefoot; 3) GluShus (aluminium-rubber composite horseshoes); and 4) steel shoes (Kerkhaert Steel Kings horseshoes) (S1 Table in S1 File). The horseshoe selection was decided upon after consulting farriers for their recommendations on existing and novel shoeing conditions to trial. The selection includes relevant and accessible options for racehorses in both training and racing contexts. The three shoe types were applied with five copper-coated mild steel nails. Shoe mass varied between 104–158 g (mean = 134±3g, mean ±2 s.e. unless otherwise stated) for the aluminium shoes (n = 63), 145–249 g (mean = 191±7 g) for the GluShus (n = 56), and 235–573 g (mean = 343±16 g) for the steel shoes (n = 65). The different shoe-surface combinations (Fig 1) were tested in a randomized order in case of carry-over effects between trials, for example due to tiredness of the horse or jockey.

Fig 1

Photographs of the four shoeing conditions and two surfaces used in this study.

A) Aluminium raceplate. B) Barefoot hoof. C) GluShu. D) Steel shoe. E) Horse galloping on Martin Collins Activ-Track at the British Racing School. F) Horse galloping on turf track at the British Racing School.

Measuring devices

The magnitude and variability of horse and jockey displacements were quantified non-invasively using two inertial measurement unit (IMU) devices. lMUs have been validated as a reliable and repeatable method for objectively quantifying equine locomotion [65-68] and human pelvic motion [69]. The IMU devices selected were iPhones equipped with the ‘SensorLog’ app (version 3.0, sample rate = 50 Hz). In alignment with previous studies on horse-rider interaction in dressage and endurance disciplines [25, 28, 29], we sought to fix these devices to the girth of the horse and the jockey’s pelvis. These attachment locations permit approximate COM movement to be characterised [70, 71], without inhibiting the natural movement of the horse or jockey. For the horse, the iPhone was secured in a pouch on a stud girth (Fig 2a). The second iPhone for the jockey was placed in a neoprene kidney-belt (Fig 2b). The orientation of the iPhone on the girth and at the jockey’s pelvis meant that at gallop the acceleration axes had the following orientations: in the CC direction positive was orientated forwards; in the ML direction positive was right; and in the DV direction positive was up (Fig 2c). For the CC-axis, ‘forwards’ versus ‘backwards’ movement was defined relative to the position that would be achieved at constant speed.

Fig 2

Orientation of the cranio-caudal (CC), medio-lateral (ML) and dorso-ventral (DV) acceleration axes in the SensorLog app.

A) At the horse’s girth. B) At the jockey’s pelvis. C) At gallop, with the jockey in the two-point seat position.

Racing conditions

Following an initial ridden warm-up, each horse galloped on level (0–2% incline) artificial and turf tracks in each shoeing condition. The tracks curved slightly anti-clockwise (S1 Fig in S1 File). The jockey was asked to gallop their horse on both left and right leads for each shoe-surface combination, in case of any laterality bias [72]. For some trials there were additional runs per condition, reflecting the fact that some additional equipment instrumented simultaneously required adjustments and repeat runs, as well as the need for multiple attempts for some horses to achieve the desired lead. Horses were not forced to exercise for a duration beyond what is typical of a short riding session (15–20 minutes), so trials were split across multiple days for each horse-jockey dyad. Data collection took place on the artificial track from summer 2019 through to early spring 2020. Data collection on the turf track was constrained to the mid-autumn of 2019 through to early spring of 2020, due to routine accessibility restrictions implemented by the BRS to avoid ‘hard’ going. Surface conditions for the turf track were documented by the jockeys, using terms used within the racing industry to describe “going” [73], and ranged from ‘soft’ to ‘good-firm’. Further details on weather conditions on data collection days are available in [64].

Data analysis

Identifying gallop data, filtering and integration

The approximate times of day for gallop episodes were noted during data collection and together with SensorLog speed data helped identify the relevant portions of accelerometry data. A custom-written Matlab script facilitated the extraction of 2–3 minute intervals of accelerometry data, each including a gallop episode, from the large original SensorLog ‘csv’ files. To reduce unwanted signal components and improve the overall precision of calculated parameters, data were filtered using a bandpass Butterworth filter with a passband of 1–15 Hz. Acceleration data were then integrated twice to quantify displacement following published methods [67, 68]. Through the highpass (bandpass) filter, the displacement had an average zero value.

Quantifying horse-jockey interaction

Maximum displacements in positive (‘maxima’) and negative (‘minima’) directions were quantified along the CC, ML and DV axes and compared between horse and jockey in response to the different shoe and surface conditions. Due to restrictions of the SensorLog app and the phone operating system, horse and jockey sensor data could not be time-synchronized to the nearest millisecond. Hence, here data analysis was limited to movement amplitudes and the relative phase between horse and jockey displacement was not assessed. To account for the possible confounding effect of differences in speed on hoof kinematics [40], or limb coordination and inter-stride movement consistency [74], stride frequency was quantified during trials, as this provides an approximation of speed [75].

To quantify displacement minima and maxima, individual trial data were first segmented into strides in Microsoft Excel using a threshold based-method that identified corresponding points in the data sequences. A custom-written Matlab script was then used to further narrow down these data based on stride frequency. A frequency of ≥2 Hz was used as the cut-off, which is approximately equivalent to 9 m s-1 [75]. Data from the condensed files were plotted so signal amplitude could be assessed visually to help identify the sequence of gallop strides. The magnitudes of displacement minima and maxima for gallop strides were quantified using Microsoft Excel. Wherever possible, consecutive strides were analysed but occasional skips of 2–3 strides reflected the horse galloping close to the 2 Hz cut-off frequency.

Statistical testing

Statistical analyses were performed in SPSS. Twelve linear mixed models were used to test for significant differences in the magnitude of horse and jockey displacement minima and maxima in the CC, ML and DV axes, under the different shoe and surface conditions. Shoe, surface and ‘shoe-surface interaction’ were defined as fixed factors and horse-jockey pair, day and run numbers as random factors. Bonferroni post-hoc comparison tests were used to determine pairwise significance between shoes and shoe-surface combinations. The significance threshold in all statistical tests was set at p<0.05.

The full data analysis procedure is summarized in Fig 3.

Fig 3

Data analysis flowchart showing the step-by-step method used to quantify centre of mass displacement patterns for horse and jockey.

CC = cranio-caudal, DV = dorso-ventral.

Results

Overview

From a total of 223 gallop runs, 185 horse and 187 jockey data files were viable for analysis. Runs were mostly discounted due to technical issues, but occasionally as a result of the horse not meeting trial criteria. Technical issues included the SensorLog app failing to record for a period of time, recording at a variable (and lower than expected) frequency or the phone unexpectedly losing power. If a horse bucked during a trial or ran with a stride frequency lower than the 2 Hz cut-off, then strides were not available for analysis. In addition, horse data from days 1 and 2 were discounted because the attachment of the phone to the girth was subsequently altered to improve security. No data from trials involving Horse-5 were viable. The total number of gallop runs analysed per shoe-surface condition is detailed in Table 1. Mean stride frequency across horse and jockey trials was 2.10±0.12 and 2.01±0.12 Hz (±1 s.d.), respectively, indicating stride frequency did not vary greatly beyond the 2 Hz threshold. Raw data are available in the S1 Data. Examples of acceleration data in time-series, integrated once to velocity and again to generate the required displacement data are available in the (S2, S3 Figs in S1 File) for both horse and jockey stride cycles.

Table 1

Number of gallop runs analysed for each shoe-surface combination.

Shoe-surface combination	Number of trials	Number of viable horse data files	Number of viable jockey data files
Aluminium-Artificial	32	19	19
Aluminium-Turf	21	19	19
Barefoot-Artificial	32	21	24
Barefoot-Turf	27	26	24
GluShu-Artificial	25	25	25
GluShu-Turf	28	25	25
Steel-Artificial	30	23	24
Steel-Turf	28	27	27

Displacement minima and maxima

Here, we first present the collective data of all shoe-surface conditions to assess the magnitude of the tri-axial displacements and look for general patterns in horse and jockey movements. We then explore the data in more detail to see whether shoe or surface had any additional impact on the results.

General trends

Overall raw means for displacement along each axis from stride data collated across data trials are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2

Mean displacement minima and maxima based on collated stride data.

Displacement parameter	Horse raw mean ±2 SD (mm) (n = 7525)	Jockey raw mean ±2 s.d. (mm) (n = 7695)
CC-axis minima (backwards)	34 ± 16	16 ± 15
ML-axis minima (left)	13 ± 10	10 ± 11
DV-axis minima (downwards)	65 ± 26	46 ± 26
CC-axis maxima (forwards)	45 ± 21	17 ± 12
ML-axis maxima (right)	13 ± 11	11 ± 15
DV-axis maxima (upwards)	66 ± 16	39 ± 23

CC = cranio-caudal, ML = medio-lateral, DV = dorso-ventral.

The position of the jockey relative to the horse throughout a gallop stride is illustrated in Fig 4, alongside an extract of displacement data for multiple strides. Jockey displacements were reduced relative to the horse in all directions. This difference was proportionally greatest in the CC-axis, particularly in the forwards direction (Table 2, Fig 4).

Fig 4

Overview of horse and jockey displacements.

A. Photographs of horse and jockey over a gallop stride cycle illustrating changes in their body movements. B. Schematic diagrams highlighting the subtle variation in jockey position shown in A. C. Horse tri-axial displacements during a gallop interval. D. Jockey tri-axial displacements over the same gallop interval shown in C. Note that the alignment of speed data to acceleration data is only approximate.

There was a relationship between the magnitude of displacement minima and maxima for both horse and jockey across individual trials (Fig 5). However, when displacement minima and maxima for the different displacement axes were compared, there appeared to be no clear relationship between them; Fig 6 illustrates a comparison between the DV and CC axes.

Fig 5

Positive relationship between the magnitude of displacement minima and maxima for individual trials.

A. Horse data. B. Jockey data.

Fig 6

Relationship between the magnitude of dorso-ventral (DV) axis and cranio-caudal (CC) axis displacements for horse and jockey individual trial data.

A. Minima. B. Maxima.

Normalizing CC-axis to DV-axis displacements for minima (‘backwards/down’) and maxima (‘forwards/up’) assisted in teasing apart these general patterns further (Fig 7). Although vertical displacements were almost always larger than CC displacements for both horse and jockey, there appeared to be a divergence in horse and jockey data as CC displacement magnitudes increased. In addition, jockey data were concentrated at lower CC/DV displacement ratios than the horse data, indicating that the jockeys experienced relatively more DV displacement.

Fig 7

Relationship between the ratio of cranio-caudal (CC) axis / dorso-ventral (DV) axis displacements for minima and maxima in horses and jockeys.

A 1:1 line is included for reference.

Influence of shoe and surface

The distribution in raw mean displacement minima and maxima data for individual runs, sub-divided by shoe-surface combination, is presented in Fig 8.

Fig 8

Distribution of displacement minima and maxima values for horse and jockey, sub-divided by shoe-surface combination.

This is based on raw mean data of individual runs.

Once individual stride data had been compiled across all trials for statistical testing, a total of 7525 and 7695 strides were available to assess horse and jockey displacements, respectively. Estimated marginal means (EMMs) computed by the models are provided in Tables 3–5 for surface, shoe and shoe-surface effects, respectively. Significance values for the main effects (surface, shoe) and the shoe-surface interaction are reported in Table 6. Significant differences amongst surfaces, shoes and surface-shoe combinations are indicated on Figs 9–11. A Bonferroni correction was applied to post-hoc pairwise comparisons of shoes and shoe-surface combinations (S2, S3 Tables in S1 File), and histograms confirmed normality of model residuals.

Table 3

Estimated marginal means and confidence intervals for surface effects.

Displacement parameter	Surface	Horse Mean (mm)	Horse 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound (mm)	Horse 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound (mm)	Jockey Mean (mm)	Jockey 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound (mm)	Jockey 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound (mm)
CC-axis minima	Artificial	-32.39	-35.84	-28.95	-16.94	-19.90	-13.98
	Turf	-34.43	-37.87	-30.99	-17.51	-20.48	-14.55
ML-axis minima	Artificial	-12.97	-14.18	-11.76	-11.17	-15.84	-6.51
	Turf	-14.86	-16.07	-13.65	-10.29	-14.96	-5.63
DV-axis minima	Artificial	-69.07	-73.07	-65.08	-44.18	-49.93	-38.43
	Turf	-63.36	-67.35	-59.37	-41.67	-47.42	-35.92
CC-axis maxima	Artificial	43.24	39.06	47.42	16.67	14.37	18.97
	Turf	45.35	41.17	49.53	17.00	14.70	19.30
ML-axis maxima	Artificial	12.65	10.75	14.56	13.61	7.82	19.41
	Turf	13.72	11.82	15.62	12.12	6.33	17.91
DV-axis maxima	Artificial	68.14	64.28	72.01	37.26	32.11	42.41
	Turf	64.62	60.75	68.48	35.86	30.71	41.01

CC = cranio-caudal, ML = medio-lateral, DV = dorso-ventral.

Table 5

Estimated marginal means and confidence intervals for combined shoe-surface effects.

Displacement parameter	Surface	Shoe	Horse Mean (mm)	Horse 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound (mm)	Horse 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound (mm)	Jockey Mean (mm)	Jockey 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound (mm)	Jockey 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound (mm)
CC-axis minima	Artificial	Aluminium	-33.58	-37.04	-30.11	-17.13	-20.11	-14.15
	Artificial	Barefoot	-32.48	-35.94	-29.02	-17.16	-20.14	-14.18
	Artificial	GluShu	-31.71	-35.17	-28.24	-17.42	-20.41	-14.43
	Artificial	Steel	-31.81	-35.28	-28.35	-16.05	-19.04	-13.07
	Turf	Aluminium	-35.50	-38.97	-32.04	-17.63	-20.62	-14.64
	Turf	Barefoot	-34.43	-37.89	-30.97	-17.87	-20.85	-14.88
	Turf	GluShu	-33.99	-37.45	-30.52	-17.81	-20.79	-14.82
	Turf	Steel	-33.81	-37.27	-30.34	-16.75	-19.73	-13.76
ML-axis minima	Artificial	Aluminium	-12.73	-13.96	-11.50	-11.79	-16.46	-7.12
	Artificial	Barefoot	-13.38	-14.61	-12.15	-10.73	-15.40	-6.06
	Artificial	GluShu	-12.90	-14.14	-11.66	-10.39	-15.06	-5.71
	Artificial	Steel	-12.87	-14.11	-11.63	-11.78	-16.45	-7.11
	Turf	Aluminium	-14.83	-16.07	-13.58	-9.64	-14.31	-4.97
	Turf	Barefoot	-14.62	-15.86	-13.39	-10.53	-15.21	-5.86
	Turf	GluShu	-14.59	-15.83	-13.36	-10.36	-15.03	-5.68
	Turf	Steel	-15.40	-16.63	-14.17	-10.65	-15.32	-5.98
DV-axis minima	Artificial	Aluminium	-69.27	-73.32	-65.23	-44.71	-50.49	-38.93
	Artificial	Barefoot	-71.17	-75.22	-67.13	-46.72	-52.49	-40.95
	Artificial	GluShu	-68.19	-72.25	-64.13	-41.69	-47.48	-35.91
	Artificial	Steel	-67.66	-71.72	-63.60	-43.61	-49.39	-37.83
	Turf	Aluminium	-64.26	-68.32	-60.20	-43.82	-49.60	-38.03
	Turf	Barefoot	-64.28	-68.33	-60.24	-42.29	-48.07	-36.52
	Turf	GluShu	-62.93	-66.98	-58.88	-41.25	-47.03	-35.46
	Turf	Steel	-61.96	-66.01	-57.92	-39.31	-45.09	-33.54
CC-axis maxima	Artificial	Aluminium	44.85	40.65	49.06	17.02	14.70	19.34
	Artificial	Barefoot	42.46	38.26	46.67	16.53	14.21	18.84
	Artificial	GluShu	42.20	37.99	46.41	17.09	14.77	19.42
	Artificial	Steel	43.44	39.23	47.65	16.05	13.73	18.37
	Turf	Aluminium	46.24	42.03	50.45	16.58	14.25	18.90
	Turf	Barefoot	44.46	40.25	48.66	17.20	14.88	19.52
	Turf	GluShu	45.12	40.91	49.33	17.54	15.22	19.86
	Turf	Steel	45.60	41.39	49.80	16.67	14.36	18.99
ML-axis maxima	Artificial	Aluminium	12.20	10.28	14.12	13.98	8.18	19.78
	Artificial	Barefoot	12.72	10.80	14.64	12.77	6.97	18.57
	Artificial	GluShu	12.41	10.48	14.33	13.36	7.56	19.17
	Artificial	Steel	13.29	11.37	15.21	14.34	8.54	20.14
	Turf	Aluminium	13.71	11.79	15.64	11.08	5.28	16.88
	Turf	Barefoot	13.56	11.64	15.48	11.72	5.92	17.52
	Turf	GluShu	13.79	11.87	15.71	12.81	7.01	18.61
	Turf	Steel	13.81	11.89	15.73	12.87	7.07	18.67
DV-axis maxima	Artificial	Aluminium	68.41	64.52	72.30	38.16	32.99	43.32
	Artificial	Barefoot	69.70	65.81	73.59	38.73	33.56	43.89
	Artificial	GluShu	66.90	63.01	70.79	35.75	30.58	40.93
	Artificial	Steel	67.56	63.67	71.46	36.42	31.25	41.59
	Turf	Aluminium	66.09	62.19	69.98	38.42	33.25	43.59
	Turf	Barefoot	64.63	60.74	68.52	36.32	31.15	41.49
	Turf	GluShu	64.24	60.35	68.13	34.98	29.81	40.15
	Turf	Steel	63.51	59.62	67.40	33.71	28.55	38.88

CC = cranio-caudal, ML = medio-lateral, DV = dorso-ventral.

Table 6

Summary of output from linear mixed models: F and significance (p) values.

Displacement parameter	Source	F value (Horse)	Significance (Horse)	F value (Jockey)	Significance (Jockey)
CC-axis minima	Surface	78.007	<0.0005	7.111	0.008
	Shoe	21.849	<0.0005	12.672	<0.0005
	Surface * Shoe	0.266	0.850	0.278	0.842
ML-axis minima	Surface	125.766	<0.0005	42.774	<0.0005
	Shoe	2.054	0.104	12.159	<0.0005
	Surface * Shoe	6.071	<0.0005	28.665	<0.0005
DV-axis minima	Surface	167.959	<0.0005	53.192	<0.0005
	Shoe	16.321	<0.0005	35.530	<0.0005
	Surface * Shoe	2.097	0.098	19.712	<0.0005
CC-axis maxima	Surface	51.581	<0.0005	3.623	0.057
	Shoe	22.820	<0.0005	8.599	<0.0005
	Surface * Shoe	2.524	0.056	4.801	0.002
ML-axis maxima	Surface	38.549	<0.0005	74.127	<0.0005
	Shoe	4.072	0.007	21.577	<0.0005
	Surface * Shoe	3.989	0.008	17.793	<0.0005
DV-axis maxima	Surface	179.093	<0.0005	25.833	<0.0005
	Shoe	21.925	<0.0005	48.447	<0.0005
	Surface * Shoe	13.428	<0.0005	12.959	<0.0005

Significant effects are highlighted in bold. CC = cranio-caudal, ML = medio-lateral, DV = dorso-ventral.

Fig 9

Output of linear mixed models for surface effects.

Estimated marginal means with 95% confidence interval are presented per displacement parameter. CC = cranio-caudal, ML = medio-lateral, DV = dorso-ventral.

Fig 11

Output of linear mixed models for surface-shoe combinations.

EMMs with 95% confidence intervals are presented per shoe-surface combination for each displacement parameter. Significant differences detected in post-hoc tests (with Bonferroni correction) are indicated. Note that pairwise comparisons between shoe-surface combinations in a particular axis direction were only made when there was found to be a significant interaction between shoeing condition and surface. CC = cranio-caudal, ML = medio-lateral, DV = dorso-ventral.

Surface significantly affected all displacement parameters for the horse (p<0.0005) and all except the CC-axis maxima for the jockey (p≤0.008) (Fig 9). The largest differences were observed in the DV-axis; an additional 5.7 and 2.5 mm of downwards displacement on the artificial surface for the horse and jockey, respectively. Small increases in backwards displacement were also apparent for both horses (2.0 mm) and jockeys (0.6 mm) on turf. ML-axis differences were all ≤1.9 mm, and the surface linked to the highest displacement was inconsistent between horses and jockeys.

Shoeing condition significantly affected all displacement parameters except the ML-axis minima for the horse (p≤0.007) and all displacement parameters for the jockey were significantly affected (p<0.0005) (Fig 10). Significance values for post-hoc pairwise comparisons between the four shoeing conditions are provided in the Supporting information for displacement parameters that were significantly affected (S2 Table in S1 File). The most notable difference for the horse occurred in DV-axis minima between the barefoot condition and steel shoes; there was an additional 2.9 mm of downwards displacement for barefoot. The ML-axis was least affected by shoeing condition. For the jockey, EMM displacement magnitude differences were largest for DV-axis minima (barefoot–steel = 3.1 mm) and maxima (aluminium–steel = 3.2 mm). For both horse and jockey, similarities in DV-axis data were apparent for barefoot and aluminium versus GluShu and steel.

Fig 10

Output of linear mixed models for shoe effects.

Estimated marginal means with 95% confidence interval are presented per displacement parameter. Significant differences between shoeing conditions detected in post-hoc tests (with Bonferroni correction) are indicated. CC = cranio-caudal, ML = medio-lateral, DV = dorso-ventral.

The interaction between shoeing condition and surface type significantly affected ML-axis minima, ML-axis maxima and DV-axis maxima data for the horse (p≤0.008), and all displacement parameters except CC-axis minima for the jockey (p≤0.002) (Fig 11). Post-hoc tests were performed when the interaction was significant. As there were eight possible shoe-surface combinations arising from two surfaces and four shoeing conditions, sequentially comparing these against one another gave rise to 28 comparisons per axis direction. With six possible directions reflecting movement in both positive and negative directions for CC, ML and DV displacement, there was a maximum of 168 comparisons possible. However, for the jockey, for whom shoe-surface interactions only significantly affected displacement in five of the six directions, 140 comparisons were made. Of these comparisons, the EMMs were significantly different in 83 cases. For the horse, 84 comparisons were made for the three directions that were significantly affected and 55 shoe-surface EMMs were found to be significantly different (S3 Table in S1 File). The largest differences in EMMs occurred in the vertical axis between ‘barefoot-artificial’ versus ‘steel-turf’: a combined minima and maxima average increase of 7.7 mm and 6.2 mm for ‘barefoot-artificial’ for the horse and jockey, respectively.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to assess COM displacements in horse-jockey dyads galloping on turf and artificial surfaces in four shoeing conditions. Optimal stability in riding is often linked to synchronous horse-rider displacements [12], which may be best achieved when there is haptic communication between horse and rider via the saddle, such as in sitting trot and canter [25, 28, 29]. Therefore, the crouched position adopted by jockeys, with its isolated COM [8], is expected to be associated with reduced stability and an increased risk of falls [12]. It is important to establish how extrinsic factors modulate this risk. The findings of this study support the hypotheses that horseshoe and ground surface types can have significant effects on the upper body displacements of horses and their jockeys.

This study focused on quantifying minima and maxima of displacements over stride cycles, which is analogous to equine gait analysis systems that utilize vertical displacement minima and maxima to detect lameness [76]. However, shifts in the overall range of motion, rather than asymmetries, were of interest here. The stride frequency threshold, for data to be included in the analysis, is consistent with slow galloping speeds [77] but should exceed canter speeds of Thoroughbreds [78-80]. Broad-scale horse and jockey displacement magnitudes recorded are in alignment with previous work [8]. The general similarities in displacement minima and maxima magnitudes (Fig 5) reflect mostly symmetrical cyclical movements of the COM of each body. Greater consistency in this relationship for the jockey, may reflect fine motor control assisting balance; for example, jockeys may pull on the reins or lean on their horses’ necks to improve CC balance, while lateral balance may be aided by sideways pushing of the legs, alterations to knee angles or changing the force distribution between stirrups [81]. This would lead to a ‘smoother’ more sinusoidal displacement curve with more similar values for minima and maxima. Interestingly, the horse CC displacement data showed higher maximum values for a given minimum value (Fig 5). These deviations from the general trend indicate that the CC displacement data do not perfectly follow a sine wave where the high-pass filtering would mean that the minima and maxima have very similar values. This may be linked to the fact that movement in the forwards direction was sharper, with high amplitude while movement in the backwards direction was smoother and prolonged, with a lower amplitude. In the ML-axis, it is possible that a ‘curve effect’ could explain why the jockey data showed ML maxima magnitudes that increased proportionally more with increasing values of ML minima, as the horses were galloping around a slight anticlockwise bend (S1 Fig in S1 File). Importantly, changes to the three-dimensional movement of the COM of the horse (and jockey) determines the distribution and magnitude of loads on limbs [82], and is therefore of relevance to injury.

The accuracy, precision and repeatability with current IMU sensor generations are in the order of 3–7 mm [83] and this is comparable between smartphones and specialist inertial sensing technology [67, 68, 84]. Here, many strides (7525 and 7695 for horse and jockey, respectively) from twelve horses were used to interpret the effect of different conditions. Although the differences between EMMs were small, the EMM values themselves exceeded sensor uncertainties. The smallest displacements occurred in the ML-axis, while larger displacements and displacement offsets occurred in the CC and DV axes; hence, the latter are more likely to be meaningful in a practical context. As the same horse-jockey combinations were assessed on the different surfaces and with different shoes we created a ‘paired’ comparison, which minimized the risk of individual horse (and jockey) related characteristics confounding results, such as skill or age.

Here, significantly greater vertical displacements were apparent for horses galloping on the artificial compared to the turf surface (Table 3, Fig 9). This may reflect the hooves sinking more at impact on the artificial surface, combined with greater propulsive forces being generated during the latter part of stance. Artificial surfaces may undergo a high degree of elastic deformation [85] and therefore return more energy to the hoof. A more rapid hoof breakover on the artificial surface [86] would be consistent with the notion that push-off forces, which would impose vertical COM movement, were stronger on this track, relative to turf. However, significantly higher CC horse displacement occurred on turf (Table 3, Fig 9). This could be linked to increased grip at the hoof-surface interface, as this would increase CC forces [56], and may suggest that surface traction had the dominant control on CC movement rather than any horizontal propulsive forces generated during breakover. Nevertheless, further work is needed to establish which surface conferred the greatest grip, as reduced breakover times on the artificial track could suggest the hooves had greater purchase on this surface [86]. It is also plausible that the softer nature of the artificial track caused the toe to rotate into this surface more easily than on turf [86]; this effect may help explain both why hoof breakover took longer on the turf track and why the associated upper body movements were more pronounced in the CC direction on turf. The patterns in horse displacements were mirrored in jockey displacements. It is important to consider that greater CC movement of the jockey could compromise stability. This is because their COM moves out of phase with the horse in this axis, in contrast to the DV and ML axes where horse and jockey movements are almost in phase [8, 12]. As such, jockey stability could be considered to be greater on the artificial surface, where CC movements were lower compared to turf, under the ground conditions studied. Stability is likely to be associated with safety, and jockey perception of safety and grip are strongly correlated [64]. It is therefore interesting to note that jockeys perceived grip to be enhanced on the artificial surface [64], which may suggest that they attribute the experience of lowered CC movement to increased grip at the hoof-surface interface.

Amongst the shoe effects (Fig 10), vertical displacements were notably similar for barefoot and aluminium compared to GluShu and steel conditions for horse and jockey. Perhaps the additional distal mass, associated with steel and GluShus, increased the energetic cost of locomotion for the horse [87] and led to an associated reduction in the vertical range of motion at the girth. Jockey displacements were most reduced in the CC-axis (0.4–1.2 mm) and increased in the ML-axis (0.5–1.4 mm) when riding horses in steel shoes, compared to all other shoe-types (Table 4). This may reflect a further adaptation of the jockey to counter energetic costs, since reduced CC displacement reflects reduced acceleration and deceleration of jockey COM per stride cycle [8]. This reduction in CC displacement may also indicate that jockey stability was improved under the steel shoeing condition. In general, the jockeys showed proportionally more vertical than horizontal displacement, but as overall horse-jockey CC displacements increased they appeared to move increasingly more backwards and/or upwards relative to the horses (Fig 7).

Table 4

Estimated marginal means and confidence intervals for shoe effects.

Displacement parameter	Shoe	Horse Mean (mm)	Horse 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound (mm)	Horse 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound (mm)	Jockey Mean (mm)	Jockey 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound (mm)	Jockey 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound (mm)
CC-axis minima	Aluminium	-34.54	-37.99	-31.09	-17.38	-20.35	-14.41
	Barefoot	-33.45	-36.90	-30.01	-17.51	-20.48	-14.55
	GluShu	-32.85	-36.30	-29.39	-17.61	-20.59	-14.64
	Steel	-32.81	-36.26	-29.36	-16.40	-19.37	-13.43
ML-axis minima	Aluminium	-13.78	-14.99	-12.57	-10.71	-15.38	-6.05
	Barefoot	-14.00	-15.21	-12.79	-10.63	-15.30	-5.97
	GluShu	-13.75	-14.97	-12.53	-10.37	-15.04	-5.70
	Steel	-14.14	-15.35	-12.92	-11.21	-15.88	-6.55
DV-axis minima	Aluminium	-66.77	-70.77	-62.76	-44.26	-50.02	-38.51
	Barefoot	-67.73	-71.73	-63.73	-44.51	-50.26	-38.76
	GluShu	-65.56	-69.58	-61.54	-41.47	-47.24	-35.70
	Steel	-64.81	-68.81	-60.81	-41.46	-47.22	-35.70
CC-axis maxima	Aluminium	45.55	41.36	49.73	16.80	14.49	19.10
	Barefoot	43.46	39.28	47.64	16.86	14.56	19.17
	GluShu	43.66	39.47	47.85	17.32	15.01	19.63
	Steel	44.52	40.34	48.71	16.36	14.06	18.67
ML-axis maxima	Aluminium	12.96	11.05	14.86	12.53	6.73	18.32
	Barefoot	13.14	11.24	15.04	12.25	6.45	18.04
	GluShu	13.10	11.19	15.01	13.09	7.29	18.89
	Steel	13.55	11.64	15.46	13.61	7.81	19.40
DV-axis maxima	Aluminium	67.25	63.38	71.12	38.29	33.13	43.44
	Barefoot	67.17	63.30	71.04	37.52	32.37	42.68
	GluShu	65.57	61.69	69.45	35.37	30.21	40.53
	Steel	65.54	61.67	69.41	35.07	29.91	40.22

CC = cranio-caudal, ML = medio-lateral, DV = dorso-ventral.

The largest absolute increase in EMMs amongst the shoe-surface conditions was observed in DV-axis minima for ‘barefoot-artificial’ compared to ‘steel-turf’, with 9.2 and 7.4 mm of additional upwards movement for horse and jockey, respectively. This may reflect the most extreme differences in distal-limb mass and material properties between shoes and surfaces. Specifically, the rigidity and relative hardness of steel [88], combined with potentially less responsive turf, may have driven rapid energy loss through limb vibrations and inelastic surface compaction; thus energy available for return to the horse would be reduced [39], when compared to ‘barefoot-artificial’. Interestingly, horse-jockey displacements under the ‘barefoot-turf’ condition were not the most extreme. This might suggest that the ‘barefoot-turf’ condition did not present any greater movement challenge to the dyad from the perspective of relative COM displacements. However, current racing guidelines advocate to avoid this condition [46] and further work is needed to relate the COM data to injury risk. For example, it is possible that barefoot horses could be more susceptible to excessive slip and injury on heavy ground, which was not studied. It is a limitation of this study that ground conditions were not well-characterised on data collection days, as surface properties can be readily altered by water content and temperature [89-93].

Some inconsistencies in the significantly affected displacement parameters for horse and jockey could reflect non-harmonious interactions between the two bodies, or controlled interventions of the jockey aimed at altering gait or improving their own stability. Horses may also alter their gait in response to changes in grip characteristics of shoes to maintain a constant slip time and distance [56]. Adjustments to joint angles, joint angular velocities and foot velocity at impact have been reported in response to altered shoeing conditions [94]. Riding experience and skill may influence rider ability to follow such subtleties in the movement patterns of their horse [95, 96], or to affect changes in gait by controlling their mass distribution, as has been reported in lameness examinations [97]. Jockeys with more experience are reported to have a lower risk of falling, and their horses have a lower risk of fatal limb fractures compared to jockeys with less experience [98-100]. This may be because advanced riders anticipate horse movement at a neuromuscular level with more defined and relaxed contralateral muscular activation patterns than novice riders [101, 102]. The jockeys in this study only had a limited number of professional years of experience, so their movement patterns may not be directly transferable to those of a more experienced jockey. Pain or stiffness can also limit rider ability to follow horse movements [18, 103] and the natural biomechanical asymmetries of the jockeys involved here was not assessed. However, since the horse-jockey pairs remained fixed it is not expected that these factors will have skewed our interpretation of horse and jockey response to the different shoe-surface combinations, although it is possible that the nuances of the response may differ amongst jockeys. It was impossible to blind the jockeys to the specific shoe-surface conditions being trialed; hence, they may also have introduced, consciously or unconsciously, alterations to their ridden style to accommodate anticipated differences. It is possible that directed jockey interventions explain why shoe-surface interactions more commonly affected jockey displacements (S3 Table in S1 File).

Thoroughbred racehorses show a variety of head, withers and pelvic movement asymmetries that vary in magnitude and direction [104, 105]. Some of these may result in changes to hoof landing angle, centre of pressure, and the distribution and timings of associated forces [106], with implication for the forces transferred to the jockey. Individual horse training experience may also bias horse-jockey interactions and horse adaptability to ridden exercise. For example, increases in stride frequency and protraction time over a six month training interval have been documented in racing Thoroughbreds [107]. Horse joint kinematics also vary with age: for example, maturity and increasing stiffness of the suspensory apparatus tissues in older Thoroughbreds lessens dorsi-flexion of forelimb fetlock joints [108, 109]. Previous research thus alludes to the importance of race and training interventions, workload and musculoskeletal health for altering horse-jockey movement dynamics.

The difference between horse and jockey EMMs for each shoe-surface combination for displacement minima and maxima were correlated (Fig 12), which reflects a link between the magnitudes of their cyclical movements. Overall differences in the CC-axis and DV-axis were 21.8±3.0 mm and 26.6±1.9 mm (mean ±2 s.e), respectively, and these have more tangible relevance than those in the ML-axis, which were considerably smaller (1.8±1.1 mm). Interestingly, however, the most extreme EMM difference in the DV-axis corresponded to the lowest EMM difference in the CC-axis (GluShu-artificial) and vice versa (aluminium-turf). There was also a general separation of artificial and turf data, with the former associated with relatively larger CC-axis and smaller DV-axis displacement offsets. Potentially, these trends signify a feedback loop was at play, whereby if a shoe-surface combination triggered horse-jockey displacement differences beyond a certain threshold in the CC-axis, then compensatory changes were required in the DV-axis for the dyad to maintain stability over a stride cycle. The correlation between horse-jockey EMM difference in the DV-axis versus the CC-axis was significant for minima displacements (Fig 13), suggesting it may have been easier to make adjustments in the backwards and downwards directions. Therefore, although there were no clear relationships between CC-axis and DV-axis data for the individual horse and jockey bodies (Fig 6), there may be value to interpreting their displacements collectively. Unfortunately, it was not possible to identify whether the horses or jockeys made the proposed adaptations instantaneously or over time.

Fig 12

Relationship between minima and maxima of horse-jockey estimated marginal mean (EMM) differences per shoe-surface combination, sub-divided by displacement axis.

Properties of the linear regression lines are indicated. Errors are ±2 SE. Note: horse-jockey EMM differences in the medio-lateral axis were considerably smaller (Table 5), so are not shown.

Fig 13

Relationship between cranio-caudal (CC) axis and dorso-ventral (DV) axis data for horse-jockey estimated marginal mean (EMM) differences per shoe-surface combination, sub-divided into minima and maxima.

Properties of the linear regression lines are indicated. Errors are ±2 SE.

In this study, IMUs were constrained to two anatomical locations: horse girth and jockey pelvis. Although girth attachments may be well-suited to picking up broad-scale equine gait differences [25, 28, 29], it is possible that subtle changes imposed by shoes and surfaces may be masked at this location, or subject to inconsistencies if the jockey tightens the girth asymmetrically. In future, a multi-sensor system may enable displacement variability to be identified at certain anatomical locations that is not present elsewhere [110-112], and offer finer insights into horse-rider movements. It may also help pinpoint which locations provide the most useful information. Certainly at lower speeds, more comprehensive full-body IMU systems may be safe and achievable, and offer more detailed insights into horse-rider movement dynamics [111]. Determining the optimum balance of horse and jockey displacement parameters is challenging. However, it may be aided by linking the objectively measurable characteristics of COM displacements recorded here to: 1) measures of hoof kinematics, such as slip, impact, breakover velocity and push-off forces; and 2) the subjective assessment of jockeys, regarding how safe they felt and any ridden strategies they may have tried to implement under different shoe-surface conditions. Equipped with this knowledge, race-training programmes may be able to offer jockeys feedback on how they should adjust their body movements to optimise potential trade-offs between locomotion efficiency and safety. In addition, policy decisions regarding permitted shoe-surface combinations may be objectively supported or refuted. In future, it will also be helpful to consider displacement patterns throughout the entire stride cycle to assess in detail how COM displacements relate to each hoof-surface contact. This is likely to be particularly insightful if time-synchronised horse-jockey displacement data become available, enabling horse-jockey relative phase offsets to be quantified also.

Nevertheless, it will be important to take a holistic approach to optimizing safety, performance and well-being, combining knowledge of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Collection of physiological data from horse-jockey dyads, such as heart rate, lactate concentrations and cortisol concentrations, could be incorporated in future studies of this nature, to compare physiological responses to biomechanical output. In addition, understanding how different shoe-surface combinations damp impact vibrations is relevant for musculoskeletal health [91, 113–115]. It would also be interesting to explore horse-jockey responses in uphill or downhill runs when stride timing variables and peak vertical forces differ [116], as well as on turns or jumps. The current project could also be adapted to horses and riders in other equestrian disciplines, such as dressage, with horses working in different shoes or over different surfaces.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that surfaces and horseshoes can have significant effects on COM displacements of horses and jockeys at gallop. These effects were detected using IMU devices fitted to the girth of horses and pelvis of jockeys, which recorded tri-axial acceleration. Displacement was calculated by integrating acceleration data. An increase in DV displacements on the artificial surface relative to turf may reflect greater hoof sink on impact followed by increased push-off. Higher cranio-caudal movements on turf could indicate that this surface afforded more grip under the ground conditions studied. More similar changes in DV displacement under aluminum and barefoot shoeing conditions when compared to GluShu and steel may reflect differences in shoe mass. The magnitude of horse minus jockey displacement in the CC and DV axes appeared to show compensatory increases and decreases, which may signify collective biomechanical adaptations of the dyad to maintain stability. Future work seeks to use multi-sensor IMU systems to determine which anatomical locations are most sensitive to variability at the hoof-surface interface and to relate COM movement dynamics to hoof kinematic variables, such as impact accelerations and slip distance. Ultimately, gaining a better understanding of the effect of novel and existing horseshoe-surface combinations on horse-jockey interactions at gallop is relevant for optimising performance, welfare and safety during both training and racing. It may offer opportunities to become prophylactic with regards to reducing the risk of falls, improving horse comfort and preventing catastrophic injuries in equine athletes and their jockeys.

Supplementary methods and supplementary results.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Raw data.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

11 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-05125

The effect of horseshoes and surfaces on horse and rider centre of mass displacements at gallop

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Horan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 26 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Chris Rogers

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

'I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Thilo Pfau is owner of EquiGait Ltd providing equine gait analysis products and services.'

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: EquiGait Ltd and James Coburn AWCF Ltd.

Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

3. We note that Figure 2 includes an image of a [patient / participant / in the study].

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”.

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for your submission. Both reviewers have identified a number of minor editorial revision are required before acceptance.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: A well-presented and really interesting applied study that provides some preliminary insight into the impact of surfaces and shoe types on horse and jockey performance, which provides insight into how future work into this field could help influence practice to reduce injury.

Abstract

Generally clear and summarises study well.

Line 22: please remove hyphen for upper body

Line 38: suggest amending to significance was set at p<0.05

Line 39: please amend to indicated

Please be consistent with use of < or ≤ throughout

Line 48-49: it would be beneficial to interpret to some extent what the amount of post-hoc significant differences translate to in practice / interpretation for the reader

Line 50: Please amend to The results support…

Introduction

Interesting and informative introduction to the study, establishes clear rationale and provides background to support readers less familiar with this field.

Materials and methods

Comprehensive and clear

Line 213-216: please amend to make past tense

Line 244: please amend to make past tense

Results

There is a lot of information presented here and while I can understand the decision to present in figures / tables then summarise, I would suggest the initial sections (prior to summary / line 344) would benefit from some brief interpretative text to help the reader interpret the data presented more and lead into the ‘in summary’ ending.

Line 284: please include standard deviation for mean as well to substantiate low variance in SF

Line 308-311 and 319-324: please amend to make past tense as these data / inferences relate to your data

Line 360-362: some narrative explanation of results evaluating the post hoc differences to show why #15% more based on rider data compared to horse data would be beneficial

Tables/ figures: please include legends and ensure all abbreviations used within tables and figures are provided within these (including those in supplementary files)

Discussion

Interesting and relevant discussion; could be worth considering rider experience in here as well as assuming used BRS students so could argue who may not possess as much postural stability as experienced jockeys

Line 394: upper body doesn’t needs to be hyphenated

Conclusion summarises key take home messages

Reviewer #2: This article presents information on how horses hooves interact with different ground surfaces and the effect of this on horse and rider displacement. It presents valuable information on the different COM displacements according to different shoe and surface conditions.

The authors claims are properly presented within the context of the previous literature. A sentence linking how the COM displacements of horse and rider may relate to the ground reaction forces experienced by the horses limb (and thus injury) would clarify the introduction further. Greater attention to grammar used in some sections would ease reading of the manuscript. The terms DV/CC/ML are interspersed with their colloquial alternatives and sometimes x,y or z axis, it would be easier to read if one or other of these terms were used consistently throughout. The titles of some references need to be in sentence case, not capitalised.

Abstract

Lines 48-49 – Unclear what is meant by the number of significant differences from the post hoc – could you rewrite to explain what is meant by this?

Line 50 – affect not effect

Lines 50-59 – is there a combination of shoe/surface that results in a more stable dyad? What have you defined as more stable/less likely to induce injury?.

Introduction

Line 80 – is inertia really decreased?. Though the jockey is moving little wrt world inertial frame, his joints are moving a lot within the bounds of the dyad to attenuate the forces produced by the horses movement, so is not actually holding a static posture.

Methods

It is a shame that the accelerometers on horse and rider could not be synchronised to find movement differences, but the information gained from what was available was useful. How was gravity accounted for in the accelerometers ?– as when the horse (and particularly the jockey) moves, gravity would act in part on different axes – was it assumed that the jockey’s back remained horizontal to the ground during the entire trial?. The double integration would compound these errors, and there should be a mention of this in the discussion.

Results

Line 296 – Does the approx. of 40% need SD/SE?

Lines 358 – a bit more explanation of this metric may be required, does this imply that the rider experiences more displacement differences than the horse?

Figures 9-11. Some of the absolute displacements look like they’re the same values, but the subscript indicates they have significantly different EMMs, how can this be?

Discussion

413-417 Are you stating the same thing twice?

Line 423 – consistency in use of axes terms (z and x correspond to which axes?)

Line 429 – Be clear that the hooves sink more into the artificial surface on impact rather than the turf. Is there any link to greater displacements with horse stability/injury? Are you equating a larger DV displacement with energy loss?

Line 488 - Does the CC displacement equate to a greater propulsive force? This seems to be indicated, and indicates that artificial surface may result in less wasted movement (DV) and thus faster racing?

Would be nice to have a bit of discussion on how the difference in displacements might affect the horse and riders stability or traction, linking back to your reasons for doing the study.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

19 Aug 2021

Response to Reviewers

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

We have checked our manuscript against the PLOS ONE style requirements.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

'I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Thilo Pfau is owner of EquiGait Ltd providing equine gait analysis products and services.'

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: EquiGait Ltd and James Coburn AWCF Ltd.

1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Yes, the funding organization (HBLB) did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

The following has been added to our manuscript. “The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [KH (full-time) and KK, JC, PD, HC, DH, LB and LH (during data collection only)], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

It did not play a role.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

We have added the following sentence to the Competing Interests Statement: “JC is the owner of James Coburn AWCF Ltd, which employs JC, HC, DH and LB. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.”

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Our cover letter has been updated accordingly.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

The Horan et al. (in press) reference in the original manuscript has been updated to Horan et al. (2021).

The revised manuscript also includes the following additional references:

Introduction:

Ruina A, Bertram JEA, Srinivasan M. A collisional model of the energetic cost of support work qualitatively explains leg sequencing in walking and galloping, pseudo-elastic leg behavior in running and the walk-to-run transition. J Theor Biol. 2005;237: 170–192. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.04.004

Bertram JEA, Gutmann A. Motions of the running horse and cheetah revisited: fundamental mechanics of the transverse and rotary gallop. J R Soc Interface. 2009;6: 549–559. doi:10.1098/rsif.2008.0328

Pfau T, Witte TH, Wilson AM. Centre of mass movement and mechanical energy fluctuation during gallop locomotion in the Thoroughbred racehorse. J Exp Biol. 2006;209: 3742–3757. doi:10.1242/jeb.02439

Discussion:

Gonzalez, M.E. and Sarabon, N., 2020. Muscle modes of the equestrian rider at walk, rising trot and canter. PLoS ONE 15: e0237727. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237727

Hitchens, P.L., Blizzard, C.L., Jones, G., Day, L.M. and Fell, J., 2012. The association between jockey experience and race-day falls in flat racing in Australia. Injury Prevention 18: 385-391. https://doi. org/10.1136/injuryprev-2011-040255.

Horan, K., Coburn, J., Kourdache, K., Day, P., Harborne, D., Brinkley, L., Carnall, H., Hammond, L., Peterson, M., Millard, S. and Thilo Pfau. 2021, in review. Influence of speed, ground surface and shoeing condition on hoof breakover duration in galloping Thoroughbred racehorses. https://doi:10.20944/preprints202108.0323.v1

Legg, K.A., Cochrane, D.J., Bolwell, C.F., Gee, E.K. and Rogers, C.W., 2020. Incidence and risk factors for race-day jockey falls over fourteen years. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 23: 1154- 1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2020.05.015

Parkin, T.D.H., Clegg, P.D., French, N.P., Proudman, C.J., Riggs, C.M., Singer, E.R., Webbon, P.M. and Morgan, K.L., 2004. Race- and course-level risk factors for fatal distal limb fracture in racing Thoroughbreds. Equine Veterinary Journal 36: 521-526.

Setterbo JJ, Fyhrie PB, Hubbard M, Upadhyaya SK, Stover SM. Dynamic properties of a dirt and a synthetic equine racetrack surface measured by a track-testing device. Equine Vet J. 2013;45: 25–30. doi:10.1111/j.2042-3306.2012.00582.x

Terada, K., 2000. Comparison of head movement and EMG activity of muscles between advanced and novice horseback riders at different gaits. Journal of Equine Science 11: 83-90. https://doi.org/10.1294/ jes.11.83

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

3. We note that Figure 2 includes an image of a [patient / participant / in the study].

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”.

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual.

The image is of author KK who has given written informed consent to publish these case details. We have added the requested statement to our methods (ethics) section. KK has also signed a consent form.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Data were submitted along with the manuscript in an Excel File. We have added this information to our cover letter.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for your submission. Both reviewers have identified a number of minor editorial revision are required before acceptance.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: A well-presented and really interesting applied study that provides some preliminary insight into the impact of surfaces and shoe types on horse and jockey performance, which provides insight into how future work into this field could help influence practice to reduce injury.

We would like to thank reviewer 1 for their comments and suggestions to improve our manuscript.

Abstract

Generally clear and summarises study well.

Line 22: please remove hyphen for upper body

This correction has been made.

Line 38: suggest amending to significance was set at p<0.05

This correction has been made.

Line 39: please amend to indicated

This correction has been made.

Please be consistent with use of < or ≤ throughout

Our use of < and ≤ is correct here. The difference reflects the fact that a SPSS output of “0.000” means a value less than 0.0005, whereas a description of a group of parameters for which one or more p values are greater than 0.0005 must have p values equal to or less than the stated value. For example, p≤0.008 means none of the p values summarised exceeded 0.008. We hope this clarifies our approach.

Line 48-49: it would be beneficial to interpret to some extent what the amount of post-hoc significant differences translate to in practice / interpretation for the reader

On reflection, we have decided to omit this detail about the post-hoc tests in the abstract. We are limited on words and feel this information is not critical here. As the reviewer points out, without further explanation as to how the numbers were acquired (for example, only the estimated marginal means of significant shoe-surface interactions were investigated, as detailed in the results, giving rise to a differing denominator for horse and rider) this sentence is difficult to interpret. The implications of the differing number of significant results in the post-hoc tests of horse and rider are discussed in detail in the discussion.

Line 50: Please amend to The results support…

This correction has been made.

Introduction

Interesting and informative introduction to the study, establishes clear rationale and provides background to support readers less familiar with this field.

Materials and methods

Comprehensive and clear

We thank the reviewer for their positive feedback on our introduction and methods.

Line 213-216: please amend to make past tense

This has been amended.

Line 244: please amend to make past tense

This has been amended.

Results

There is a lot of information presented here and while I can understand the decision to present in figures / tables then summarise, I would suggest the initial sections (prior to summary / line 344) would benefit from some brief interpretative text to help the reader interpret the data presented more and lead into the ‘in summary’ ending.

We have now added the following sentences at the beginning of the ‘Displacement minima and maxima’ section.

“Here, we first present the collective data of all shoe-surface conditions to assess the magnitude of the tri-axial displacements and look for general patterns in horse and rider movements. We then explore the data in more detail to see whether shoe or surface had any additional impact on the results.”

We have also restructured the ‘General trends’ sub-section so that the mean values (Table 2) come first. We have removed the words “In summary” from line 364, because this was not appropriate here.

Line 284: please include standard deviation for mean as well to substantiate low variance in SF

The stride frequency for the horse and rider data sets are now both reported with SD (RM line 296).

Line 308-311 and 319-324: please amend to make past tense as these data / inferences relate to your data

This has been amended in each case.

Line 360-362: some narrative explanation of results evaluating the post hoc differences to show why #15% more based on rider data compared to horse data would be beneficial

We apologise that this was unclear in our original manuscript. There are eight possible shoe-surface combinations arising from two surfaces and four shoe types. When these are sequentially compared against one another this gives rise to 28 comparisons per axis direction. As there are six possible directions reflecting movement in both positive and negative directions for CC, ML and DV displacement, there are 168 comparisons possible. For the rider, shoe-surface interactions only significantly affected displacement in five of these six directions, so only 140 comparisons were made. Of these comparisons, the EMMs were significantly different in 83 cases. For the horse, three directions were significantly affected, so 84 comparisons were made between shoe-surface conditions. In this case, 55 were found to be significantly different. We have now added the following to our revised manuscript (lines 380-391).

“Post-hoc tests were performed when the interaction was significant. As there were eight possible shoe-surface combinations arising from two surfaces and four shoe types, sequentially comparing these against one another gave rise to 28 comparisons per axis direction. With six possible directions reflecting movement in both positive and negative directions for CC, ML and DV displacement, there was a maximum of 168 comparisons possible. However, for the rider, for whom shoe-surface interactions only significantly affected displacement in five of the six directions, 140 comparisons were made. Of these comparisons, the EMMs were significantly different in 83 cases. For the horse, 84 comparisons were made for the three directions that were significantly affected and 55 shoe-surface EMMs were found to be significantly different (Supporting Information, Table S3).”

In addition, we have now included the post-hoc results within the supplementary information for both shoe-type (Table S2) and shoe-surface combinations (Table S3). This also helps to clarify the comparisons made.

Tables/ figures: please include legends and ensure all abbreviations used within tables and figures are provided within these (including those in supplementary files)

The following amendments have been made to the figures.

Figure 1: Letters A-F have been added on to images. The abbreviation ‘BRS’ has been changed to ‘British Racing School’ in the caption. The order of the shoes has been switched for consistency with data tables (i.e. alphabetical).

Figure 2: The caption has been amended so the terms x, y and z are replaced with CC, ML and DV.

Figure 3: Text has been enlarged on some of the subplots. The text has been amended so the terms x and z are replaced with CC and DV. The abbreviation COM in the caption has been changed to centre of mass. CC and DV are explained in the caption.

Figure 4: We have deleted reference to Supplementary Information in the caption as we removed the discussion from here on why speed and acceleration data could not be aligned (removed prior to original manuscript submission).

Figure 5: No changes

Figure 6: The terms DV and CC are expanded in the caption.

Figure 7: Dot at the origin has been deleted. The 0 on the x-axis has been changed to 0.0. The abbreviations CC and DV are expanded in the caption.

Figure 8: No changes

Figure 9: No changes

Figure 10: The abbreviations CC, ML and DV are explained in the caption.

Figure 11: The abbreviations CC, ML and DV are explained in the caption. The following sentence was also added to the caption: “Note that pairwise comparisons between shoe-surface combinations in a particular axis direction were only made when there was found to be a significant interaction between shoe and surface.” This is to also help clarify our approach, in response to the query raised by the reviewer above.

Figure 12: The abbreviations EMM, CC and DV are expanded in the caption. The lines of best-fit are now dashed, for consistency with Figure 13.

Figure 13: The abbreviations EMM, CC and DV are expanded in the caption.

Figure S1: No changes

Figure S2: Axes on figures updated so x, y, and z are replaced with CC, ML and DV. These terms are explained in the caption.

Figure S3: Axes on figures updated so x, y, and z are replaced with CC, ML and DV. These terms are explained in the caption.

The following amendments have been made to the tables.

Table 1: Word “gallop” added to table caption. Asterisks deleted from column 4. Order of data restructured to match order in stats results tables.

Table 2: CC, ML and DV explained in caption.

Table 3: CC, ML and DV explained in caption.

Table 4: CC, ML and DV explained in caption.

Table 5: CC, ML and DV explained in caption.

Table 6: CC, ML and DV explained in caption.

Table S1: Order of columns changed for consistency with stats results tables e.g. Table S2 and S3.

Table S2: New to the revised manuscript. Shows post-hoc pairwise comparisons (with Bonferroni correction) for shoe type. Significant differences are highlighted in bold.

Table S3. New to the revised manuscript. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons (with Bonferroni correction) for shoe-surface combinations. Significant differences are highlighted in bold.

Discussion

Interesting and relevant discussion; could be worth considering rider experience in here as well as assuming used BRS students so could argue who may not possess as much postural stability as experienced jockeys

The riders were not students but did only have a limited number of professional years of experience, as detailed in the methodology.

Our discussion had already considered the issue of rider skill in the following places. To this, we have added the text underlined.

Lines 454-457 (revised manuscript): “As the same horse-rider combinations were assessed on the different surfaces and with different shoes we created a ‘paired’ comparison, which minimized the risk of individual horse (and jockey) related characteristics confounding results, such as skill or age.”

Lines 512-524 (revised manuscript) “Riding experience and skill may influence rider ability to follow such subtleties in the movement patterns of their horse [93,94 Terada et al., 2000], or to affect changes in gait by controlling their mass distribution, as has been reported in lameness examinations [95]. Jockeys with more experience are reported to have a lower risk of falling, and their horses have a lower risk of fatal limb fractures compared to jockeys with less experience (Hitchens et al., 2012; Legg et al., 2020; Parkin et al., 2004). This may be because advanced riders anticipate horse movement at a neuromuscular level with more defined and relaxed contralateral muscular activation patterns than novice riders (Gonzalez and Sarabon, 2020; Terada et al., 2000). The riders in this study only had a limited number of professional years of experience, so their movement patterns may not be directly transferable to those of a more experienced jockey. Rider pPain or stiffness may also limit rider their ability to follow horse movements [5,6] and the natural biomechanical asymmetries of the riders used here was not assessed. However, since the horse-rider pairs remained fixed it is not expected that these factors will have skewed our interpretation of horse and rider response to the difference shoe-surface combinations, although it is possible that the nuances of the response may differ amongst riders.results.”

Hitchens PL, Leigh Blizzard C, Jones G, Day LM, Fell J. The association between jockey experience and race-day falls in flat racing in Australia. Inj Prev. 2012;18: 385–391. doi:10.1136/injuryprev-2011-040255

Legg KA, Cochrane DJ, Bolwell CF, Gee EK, Rogers CW. Incidence and risk factors for race-day jockey falls over fourteen years. J Sci Med Sport. 2020;23: 1154–1160. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2020.05.015

Parkin TDH, Clegg PD, French NP, Proudman CJ, Riggs CM, Singer ER, et al. Race- and course-level risk factors for fatal distal limb fracture in racing Thoroughbreds. Equine Vet J. 2004;36: 521–526.

González E.M, Šarabon N. Muscle modes of the equestrian rider at walk, rising trot and canter. PLoS One. 2020;15: e0237727. doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0237727

Terada K. Comparison of head movement and EMG activity of muscles between advanced and novice horseback riders at different gaits. J Equine Sci. 2000;11: 83–90. doi:10.1294/JES.11.83

Line 394: upper body doesn’t needs to be hyphenated

This correction has been made.

Conclusion summarises key take home messages

Reviewer #2: This article presents information on how horses hooves interact with different ground surfaces and the effect of this on horse and rider displacement. It presents valuable information on the different COM displacements according to different shoe and surface conditions.

The authors claims are properly presented within the context of the previous literature. A sentence linking how the COM displacements of horse and rider may relate to the ground reaction forces experienced by the horses limb (and thus injury) would clarify the introduction further. Greater attention to grammar used in some sections would ease reading of the manuscript. The terms DV/CC/ML are interspersed with their colloquial alternatives and sometimes x,y or z axis, it would be easier to read if one or other of these terms were used consistently throughout. The titles of some references need to be in sentence case, not capitalised.

We would like to thank reviewer 2 for their comments and suggestions to improve our manuscript.

We now include the following additional information in our introduction to suggest how the COM displacements of horse and rider may relate to the ground reaction forces experienced by the horses’ limbs, and the associated risk of injury. (Key changes are underlined)

(Revised manuscript lines 78-94) “The horses’ limbs act in sequence to redirect their COM [7]. The first footfalls (hindlimbs) accelerate the horse, propelling the COM forwards, and the later ones (forelimbs) decelerate the horse and apply vertical impulse to the COM [8]. Energy is lost during the stance phase of the limbs and is a function of the change in the angle of the trajectory of the COM [7]. The leading forelimb is thought to be the most important for redirecting the COM, as a result of cranio-caudal (CC) deceleration, vertical acceleration and an increase in potential energy of the COM occurring during the stance phase of this limb [9]. On a stride per stride basis, jockey kinematics adjust to accommodate the changes in translational and rotational upper-body movements of the horse and thereby maintain stability [10]. For example, during stance of the leading hindlimb at gallop, the horse’s trunk and jockey’s pelvis both displace laterally and roll away from the side of this leg [10]. Force data from stirrups indicate that jockeys push away from the stirrup on the non-lead side at this time to maintain the position of their COM close to the horse’s midline and balance themselves [10]. A slight delay in the dorso-ventral (DV) displacement of a jockey’s pelvis occurs relative to the horse, but medio-lateral (ML) movements are in phase [10]. Importantly, as the jockey’s COM moves out of phase with the horse in the CC-axis [10,11], this is when they are most unstable [10]. It is not known at which point in the stride cycle jockeys are most susceptible to injury, but it is plausible that it would be when displacements peak in the CC-axis.”

The additional references in this paragraph are as follows.

Ruina A, Bertram JEA, Srinivasan M. A collisional model of the energetic cost of support work qualitatively explains leg sequencing in walking and galloping, pseudo-elastic leg behavior in running and the walk-to-run transition. J Theor Biol. 2005;237: 170–192. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.04.004

Bertram JEA, Gutmann A. Motions of the running horse and cheetah revisited: fundamental mechanics of the transverse and rotary gallop. J R Soc Interface. 2009;6: 549–559. doi:10.1098/rsif.2008.0328

Pfau T, Witte TH, Wilson AM. Centre of mass movement and mechanical energy fluctuation during gallop locomotion in the Thoroughbred racehorse. J Exp Biol. 2006;209: 3742–3757. doi:10.1242/jeb.02439

We have revised some sections of text to past tense to improve the flow of manuscript, also in response to Reviewer 1.

We have altered our manuscript so only the terms DV/CC/ML are included (without the confusion of x,y,z).

We have checked the references and amended accordingly. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

We provide an additional point by point response to the other suggestions of Reviewer 2 below.

Abstract

Lines 48-49 – Unclear what is meant by the number of significant differences from the post hoc – could you rewrite to explain what is meant by this?

We apologise that this was not clear. The revised manuscript no longer contains this information (see also response to reviewer 1). We have provided additional detail on how the number of significant differences and comparisons arose in the results section of the revised manuscript.

Line 50 – affect not effect

This correction has been made.

Lines 50-59 – is there a combination of shoe/surface that results in a more stable dyad? What have you defined as more stable/less likely to induce injury?

We have added the following to our revised manuscript.

Abstract, RM lines 53-55:

“The artificial surface and steel shoes provoked the least cranio-caudal axis movement of the jockey, so may promote greatest stability.”

Discussion, RM lines 473-477: It is important to consider that greater CC movement of the rider could compromise stability, because their COM moves out of phase with the horse in this axis, in contrast to the DV and ML axes where the horse and rider movements are almost in phase [10,11]. As such, jockey stability could be considered to be greater on the artificial surface, where CC movements were lower compared to turf under the ground conditions studied.

& RM lines 488-489: “This reduction in CC displacement may also indicate improved rider stability under the steel shoeing condition.”

Introduction

Line 80 – is inertia really decreased?. Though the jockey is moving little wrt world inertial frame, his joints are moving a lot within the bounds of the dyad to attenuate the forces produced by the horses movement, so is not actually holding a static posture.

We are not saying that the position is good for the jockey, on the contrary it is ‘costly’ for the jockey.

Methods

It is a shame that the accelerometers on horse and rider could not be synchronised to find movement differences, but the information gained from what was available was useful. How was gravity accounted for in the accelerometers ?– as when the horse (and particularly the jockey) moves, gravity would act in part on different axes – was it assumed that the jockey’s back remained horizontal to the ground during the entire trial?. The double integration would compound these errors, and there should be a mention of this in the discussion.

The horse and jockey were only assessed at the gallop, where the jockey always adopted the ‘martini glass’ posture. The general orientation of the axes therefore remained fixed throughout trials, as per Figure 2. It is true that the precise orientation of the axes (and hence effect of gravity) will have differed to some extent throughout a stride cycle. However, at the respective minima and maxima displacements along each axis, which are the measurements of interest here, this orientation will be consistent.

Results

Line 296 – Does the approx. of 40% need SD/SE?

The value of 40% had reflected a consideration of all axes together, and the visual depiction of an extract of data in Figure 4. However, to improve clarity we have deleted this sentence and replaced with the following.

“Rider displacements were reduced relative to the horse in all directions. This difference was proportionally greatest in the cranio-caudal axis, particularly in the forwards direction (Table 2, Fig 4).”

The SD/SE are provided for the mean values reported in Table 2 for each axis.

Lines 358 – a bit more explanation of this metric may be required, does this imply that the rider experiences more displacement differences than the horse?

We assume the reviewer is referring here to the post-hoc test results (lines 361-363 in the original manuscript)? We now provide the following explanation as to how this was quantified.

“Post-hoc tests were performed when the interaction was significant. As there were eight possible shoe-surface combinations arising from two surfaces and four shoe types, sequentially comparing these against one another gave rise to 28 comparisons per axis direction. With six possible directions reflecting movement in both positive and negative directions for CC, ML and DV displacement, there was a maximum of 168 comparisons possible. However, for the rider, for whom shoe-surface interactions only significantly affected displacement in five of the six directions, 140 comparisons were made. Of these comparisons, the EMMs were significantly different in 83 cases. For the horse, 84 comparisons were made for the three directions that were significantly affected and 55 shoe-surface EMMs were found to be significantly different (Supporting Information, Table S3).”

Figures 9-11. Some of the absolute displacements look like they’re the same values, but the subscript indicates they have significantly different EMMs, how can this be?

As detailed in the results Tables 3-5, the absolute differences in mean displacements between conditions are often small, particularly in the ML axis. However, these differences were still found to be significant in some cases. Please note that in the case of Figure 11, only the significant interactions (marked *) were investigated in the post-hoc tests (as detailed above). For clarity this information has also been added to the Figure 11 caption: “Note that pairwise comparisons between shoe-surface combinations in a particular axis direction were only made when there was found to be a significant interaction between shoe and surface.”

Discussion

413-417 Are you stating the same thing twice?

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have deleted the second sentence.

Line 423 – consistency in use of axes terms (z and x correspond to which axes?)

We have altered our manuscript so only the terms DV/CC/ML are included (without the confusion of x, y and z). Figures have also been updated.

Line 429 – Be clear that the hooves sink more into the artificial surface on impact rather than the turf. Is there any link to greater displacements with horse stability/injury? Are you equating a larger DV displacement with energy loss?

We have added “on the artificial surface” to RM line 459 to improve clarity.

Greater cranio-caudal movement for the jockey may be linked to reduced stability because they are moving out of phase with the horse in this axis.

We have updated this paragraph to the following.

RM lines 458-481 “Here, significantly greater vertical displacements were apparent for horses galloping on the artificial compared to the turf surface (Table 3, Fig 9). This may reflect the hooves sinking more at impact on the artificial surface, combined with greater propulsive forces being generated during the latter part of stance. Artificial surfaces may undergo a high degree of elastic deformation [85] and therefore return more energy to the hoof. A more rapid hoof breakover on the artificial surface [86] would be consistent with the notion that push-off forces, which would impose vertical COM movement, are stronger on this track, relative to turf. However, significantly higher CC horse displacement occurred on turf (Table 3, Fig. 9). This could be linked to increased grip at the hoof-surface interface, as this would increase CC forces [56], and may suggest that surface traction has the dominant control on CC movement rather than any horizontal propulsive forces generated during breakover. Nevertheless, further work is needed to establish which surface conferred the greatest grip, as reduced breakover times on the artificial track could suggest the hooves had greater purchase on this surface (Horan et al., 2021, in review). It is also plausible that the softer nature of the artificial track caused the toe to rotate into this surface more easily than on turf [86]; this effect may help explain both why hoof breakover took longer on the turf track and why the associated upper body movements were more pronounced in the CC direction on turf. The patterns in horse displacements were mirrored in rider displacements. It is important to consider that greater CC movement of the rider could compromise stability. This is because their COM moves out of phase with the horse in this axis, in contrast to the DV and ML axes where the horse and rider movements are almost in phase [8,12]. As such, jockey stability could be considered to be greater on the artificial surface, where CC movements were lower compared to turf, under the ground conditions studied. Stability is likely to be associated with safety, and jockey perception of safety and grip are strongly correlated [64]. It is therefore interesting to note that jockeys perceived grip to be enhanced on the artificial surface [64], which may suggest they attribute the experience of lowered CC movement to increased grip at the hoof-surface interface.

New references:

Horan, K., Coburn, J., Kourdache, K., Day, P., Harborne, D., Brinkley, L., Carnall, H., Hammond, L., Peterson, M., Millard, S. and Thilo Pfau (2021, in review) Influence of speed , ground surface and shoeing condition on hoof breakover duration in galloping Thoroughbred racehorses. https://doi:10.20944/preprints202108.0323.v1

Setterbo JJ, Fyhrie PB, Hubbard M, Upadhyaya SK, Stover SM. Dynamic properties of a dirt and a synthetic equine racetrack surface measured by a track-testing device. Equine Vet J. 2013;45: 25–30. doi:10.1111/j.2042-3306.2012.00582.x

Line 488 - Does the CC displacement equate to a greater propulsive force? This seems to be indicated, and indicates that artificial surface may result in less wasted movement (DV) and thus faster racing?

Would be nice to have a bit of discussion on how the difference in displacements might affect the horse and riders stability or traction, linking back to your reasons for doing the study.

We now have hoof breakover data from this sample of horses, which indicates a faster breakover occurs on the artificial track. The artificial track actually shows increased DV movement, which may reflect the generation of stronger propulsive forces (acting both forwards and upwards).

However, since CC movements were greater on turf this could indicate that the dominant control on CC movement occurs on impact, and is governed by the amount of traction offered.

The paragraph was revised, as detailed above (RM lines 458-481).

________________________________________

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

13 Sep 2021

The effect of horseshoes and surfaces on horse and rider centre of mass displacements at gallop

PONE-D-21-05125R1

Dear Dr. Horan,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Chris Rogers

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for your edits to the manuscript. It may now proceed with the publication process.

Reviewers' comments:

15 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-05125R1

The effect of horseshoes and surfaces on horse and jockey centre of mass displacements at gallop

Dear Dr. Horan:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Chris Rogers

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE