Dynamic Properties of Antennal Responses to Pheromone in Two Moth Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamic properties of pheromone plumes are behaviorally important in some moths for inducing upwind flight, but little is known about the time-dependent properties of odor transduction or the mechanisms that limit receptor dynamic sensitivity. We stimulated male antennae of two moth species, Cadra cautella and Spodoptera exigua, with pheromone plumes in a wind tunnel while recording electroantennograms (EAG) and concentration of a surrogate plume (propylene, which mimics a pheromone plume) using a photoionization detector (PID). Turbulent plumes were produced by mechanical baffles, creating broad frequency range dynamic concentration changes at the antennae. Frequency response functions and coherence functions between PID and EAG signals were used to measure the dynamic responses of the two species to pheromone blends and individual components. A single time constant filter fitted the responses of both species, but S. exigua was about three times faster than C. cautella. Responses to individual pheromone components were significantly different in S. exigua but not in C. cautella. We also fitted the data with a simple block-structured nonlinear cascade. This supported the simple filter model but also suggested that the response saturates at an early stage of chemotransduction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".