Intracellular Responses of Antennal Chordotonal Sensilla of the American Cockroach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The responses of mechanoreceptor neurons in the antennal chordotonal organ have been examined in cockroaches by intracellular recording methods. The chordotonal organ was mechanically stimulated by sinusoidal movement of the flagellum. Stimulus frequencies were varied between 0.5 and 150 Hz. Receptor neurons responded with spike discharges to mechanical stimulation, and were classed into two groups from plots of their average spike frequencies against stimulus frequency. Neurons in one group responded to stimulation over a wide frequency range (from 0.5 to 150 Hz), whereas those in a second group were tuned to higher frequency stimuli. The peak stimulus frequency at which receptor neurons showed maximum responses differed from cell to cell. Some had a peak response at a stimulus frequency given in the present study (from 0.5 to 150 Hz), whereas others were assumed to have peak responses beyond the highest stimulus frequency examined. The timing for the initiation of spikes or of a burst of spikes plotted against each stimulus cycle revealed that spike generation was phase-locked in most cells. Some cells showed phase-independent discharges to stimulation at lower frequency, but increasing stimulus frequencies spike initiation began to assemble at a given phase of the stimulus cycle. The response patterns observed are discussed in relation to the primary process of mechanoreception of the chordotonal organ.
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) | 0.001 | 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".