MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069345834 · doi:10.1242/jeb.01526

The mechanics of sound production in<i>Panacanthus pallicornis</i>(Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae: Conocephalinae): the stridulatory motor patterns

2005· article· en· W2069345834 on OpenAlexaff
Fernando Montealegre‐Z, Andrew C. Mason

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrthoptera Research and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStridulationTettigoniidaeAcousticsWingBioacousticsOrthopteraScraper siteSound productionAudio frequencyGeologyPhysicsBiologySound pressurePaleontologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To examine whether sound production in katydids relies on an escapement mechanism similar to that of crickets we investigated the functional anatomy and mechanical properties of the stridulatory apparatus in the katydid Panacanthus pallicornis. Males of this species produce sustained pulses with a sharp low frequency peak of approximately approximately 5 kHz and a broad band spectrum between 15 and 25 kHz. Simultaneous recordings of movement and sound indicate that the entire stridulatory file is used for sound production and there is nearly a 1:1 correspondence between the number of cycles in a song and the number of teeth on the file. There is an overall tendency for both the spacing of teeth to increase along the file and the velocity of wing closure to increase as the scraper traverses the file. There is considerable variation, however, in the evenness of tooth spacing and in the instantaneous velocity of wing closure during sound production. The production of sustained pulses appears to depend on resonance in the right tegmen, with the left tegmen acting primarily as a damping element. This resonance is not strongly coupled to the scraper and, unlike crickets, the timing of file-scraper interactions, and therefore the phasing of energy input to wing oscillations, is variable. Similarly, the quality of the sound spectrum varies over the course of a single stridulatory wing-stroke. Based on measurements of tooth spacing on the stridulatory file and cycle-by-cycle frequency of sound output, we predicted the velocity of wing movement that would provide consistent phasing of file-scraper interactions with respect to sound-radiating wing oscillations and compared this with measurements of wing velocity. Acceleration of wing velocity during stridulation results in a closer match to the velocity required for optimal phasing during a portion of the call, and this corresponds with higher amplitudes of radiated sound and the excitation of higher order modes of vibration (evident as distinct harmonic peaks in spectrograms). Our results suggest that in katydid stridulation, the movement of the scraper along the file is not regulated by an escapement mechanism as it is in crickets. Instead, katydids that produce pure-tone songs sweep their wings over a range of velocities, within which some portion matches file tooth spacing to give optimal phasing of energy input to excite a resonance in the right tegmen.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations75
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicOrthoptera Research and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207