The new headgear - The Fixator | Trainer Magazine | European Trainer Article Index

Apr 27

Apr 27 The new headgear - The Fixator

IT has become part of accepted practice that most professional athletes have a team of experts around them, their aim is to identify whether small, incremental changes in one or more elements can produce an exponential enhancement to the overall competitive results the athlete achieves. In recent years, the optometric field is one such speciality, whereby the objective is to gain understanding of the how the individual athlete’s eyes collate and interpret visual stimuli. This can be measured by recording reaction times and speed of response in hand- eye-foot coordination tests. I have spent a number of years of research in this field on various sports including track and field athletics, fencing, snooker, and swimming. My attention was drawn to the possibilities of applying my experience to equine vision when I began studies into the race jockey’s visual perspective. I noticed that headgear worn on certain horses created a possible negative visual impact, which in turn impeded the overall level of performance. Information was then gathered from experts in the equine veterinarian and ophthalmological fields. It became apparent that whilst this area had been investigated, for example – the article by James Tate in European Trainer (issue 13), which raises questions as to whether and what type of headgear should be used – very little detailed evidence measuring its positive or negative effect was available. There can be no doubt, given the empirical evidence of the number of racehorses running well in cheekpieces, visors, blinkers, eyeshields and sheepskin nosebands each day, that there is a likelihood they do provide a positive stimulus for some horses. However, seemingly more do not run to expectation. Ultimately horse racing is all about winning. Winning performances using headgear get well publicised by commentators, but under performances are rarely highlighted. This exaggeration may actually be detrimental to assessing the true effects. The lack of performance data also raises questions. Does the horse run well because of or despite the wearing of headgear? Does the horse’s attitude o racing override any visual fatigue possibly caused by headgear? To what extent does an individual horse’s natural head carriage and physical confirmation affect visual performance when wearing headgear? Can optometric theory be used to identify potential improvements in headgear? The eyes of a horse are positioned on each side of the animal’s head, allowing it to use monocular vision and giving an expansive field of view, which has evolved from its ability to see threats and predators in its natural habitat. Depending upon the position of an object the horse may also turn its head, or even turn its whole body to view a strange stimulus. However, when the horse wishes to see an object at close range, it tends to utilise binocular vision, where both eyes are receiving light rays from the object and will also lift or lower its head in order to focus an image of the object on its retina, at the back of its eye. Binocular vision occurs when images received from each eye overlap and this creates a narrow field of view in front of the horse, which enables stereoscopic vision. It is the stereoscopic vision that provides the horse with the ability to judge and perceive depth of field and interpret in three-dimensional vision, important for running at speed and judging distances when jumping. In terms of how the equine athlete visually performs there may be similarities with the optical mechanics of the human athlete. This is most important in the relationship between binocular vision, visual interpretation, subsequent eye-limb-hoof co-ordination and resultant speed in the horse. Taking these factors into consideration, the most popular items of headgear can be critically analysed using optical assumptions. Sheepskin nosebands or shadow rolls of differing shapes and thicknesses have been used for many years for differing reasons, popularly either on the basis they help horses concentrate in racing by lowering the horses head or to obscure shadows which may cause the horse to spook. However, optically there could be a drawback in their application for certain horses as they are required to hold their heads and therefore maintain their gaze at a potentially unnatural steep angle of tilt, in order that they can view over the noseband. This may produce the desired effect required by the trainer to lower the horse’s head but a resultant issue could be the awkward and uncomfortable eye position and the subsequent failure of fusion of two vertically disparate images that the horse now sees i.e. double vision. The external vertical muscles controlling the eyeballs may be stretched into an unnatural angular position, where a small imbalance will immediately compromise the important binocular vision and it may become difficult for the horse to maintain visual stability. Images in the visual cortex of the brain may become difficult to assimilate just as in the human and visual fatigue as demonstrated by eye dominance may then come into play. This is where images from the dominant eye may be interpreted fractionally quicker, possibly even being accepted from one eye only. This could be a reason why awkward running is exhibited by the horse leaning in one direction. The race commentator may be using words such as hanging, drifting, not concentrating but there is reason to believe the horse may have lost its binocular vision and is now running one-eyed. This is an important factor to consider if a left-eye dominant horse is running on a left-handed track and vice versa and is forced by action of the headgear equipment in use, to adopt a unilateral running style and sideways gait. Blinkers or visors are positioned to block rear peripheral vision and can cause a horse to move its head from left to right in an attempt to try and obtain a wider field of view. This loss of spatial awareness may affect the horse’s 3-D Vision and its physical balance needed for grounding itself in its surroundings, possibly unbalancing the horse. Although, if a horse is front-running in blinkers, other factors may come into play even though the horse only has restricted frontal view and its performance may differ to that shown when in running midfield with horses on either side. With the realisation of the possible shortcomings of existing headgear such as sheepskin nosebands/shadow rolls, blinkers and shields this raised the question – could there be a design of headgear where a visual guide assists and maintains forward binocular vision, whilst not impairing the important peripheral vision for balance? This thought process led to the examination of the anatomical structure of the horses head, its eye positions and the visual tasks required during competition. Prototypes of a new headgear were made that should create a virtual fixation point in the frontal field of view of the horse. This was possible by the placing of a sheepskin buffer in certain spatial planes along the intersection of the visual axis of each eye. This new headgear has become known as “The Fixator”. Made of sheepskin, in theory it achieves a simple, innovative, non-invasive method of assisting natural equine vision. By positioning “The Fixator” in the forward line of sight, the eye can be drawn towards that focal point and beyond. Placed at certain positions on both sides of the horses head, mid way between the nostril and the eye, depending on the head shape and physical size of the horse, there is no restriction placed on peripheral vision. The important factor here is that a point is created in the frontal field of view, similar to when a human outstretches their arms in front of themselves and holds index fingers up to create a visual framework or reference point. The vision is automatically drawn to these upright extensions, which may differ in size and shape and the eyes are then found to look between and stay within the two points, depending upon whether the object is close or distant. The assertion being that if the horse is encouraged to look forward, it will follow a forward and straighter trajectory. “The Fixator” positions will vary depending upon the type of bridle and racing equipment also being worn. These are also made of synthetic and waterproof materials so that the benefits of using “The Fixator” as a continuous optical training aid are recognised. This will ensure that the eyes are used to focusing and achieving optimum vision in the training grounds. An example of which is seen on a daily basis on the racecourse where headgear equipment is declared for a race, but the horse infrequently trains in that piece of equipment. From an optical perspective, the absence of regular wearing of headgear could affect the horse’s ability to judge the racecourse dimensions, especially when gauging the new visual signals when asked to run in first-time or rarely used headgear. Taking an illustration from a human scenario, when learning to drive a car, many people do not consider to have their eyes tested for the legal driving limit until the very last opportunity. This negates all the hours of time and of expense of driving lessons and the distraught candidate cannot understand how their visual perception has changed their judgement of distances and object positions when they hit a kerb or reverse incorrectly, thus failing the driving test. This is the theory behind the product design. As with any new product, it is one thing to theorise about its functionality and another to actually test it in practice. With the assistance of trainer, Kim Bailey, permission was granted by the British Horseracing Authority to use “The Fixator” on British Racecourses and it was trialled on his racehorses for a six week period from mid September 2011. On the first day it was introduced, it was worn to success by Rannoch Moor. It has been worn singly and with other headgear. A further outright winner, Max Bygraves, and several other placings formed statistics of the numerous runs across the period of horses wearing “The Fixator”, their performance before and subsequent runs without “The Fixator” in situ, where movement in running and jumping was observed on course, from video and racing media where available. There is certainly much scope for further research into the impact of headgear on the racehorse’s vision. In theory, “The Fixator” has strong grounds to be regarded as a useful alternative to those items in current use. Whether or not the theory works out in practice can only be assessed by further testing in both the racing and scientific environments.

CLICK ON IMAGE TO READ ARTICLE

THIS ARTICLE FIRST APPEARED IN - EUROPEAN TRAINER - ISSUE 37

Jun 7 TRM Trainer of the Quarter - Michael Figge

Apr 27 Dermot Weld