The Independent Evolution of the Enlargement of the Principal Sensory Nucleus of the Trigeminal Nerve in Three Different Groups of Birds
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In vertebrates, sensory specializations are usually correlated with increases in the brain areas associated with that specialization. This correlation is called the 'principle of proper mass' whereby the size of a neural structure is a reflection of the complexity of the behavior that it subserves. In recent years, several comparative studies have revealed examples of this principle in the visual and auditory system of birds, but somatosensory specializations have largely been ignored. Many species rely heavily on tactile information during feeding. Input from the beak, tongue and face, conveyed via the trigeminal, facial, glossopharyngeal and hypoglossal nerves, is first processed in the brain by the principal sensory nucleus of the trigeminal nerve (PrV) in the brainstem. Previous studies report that PrV is enlarged in some species that rely heavily on tactile input when feeding, but no extensive comparative studies have been performed. In this study, we assessed the volume of PrV in 73 species of birds to present a detailed analysis of the relative size variation of PrV using both conventional and phylogenetically based statistics. Overall, our results indicate that three distinct groups of birds have a hypertrophied PrV: waterfowl (Anseriformes), beak-probing shorebirds (Charadriiformes), and parrots (Psittaciformes). These three groups have different sensory requirements from the orofacial region. For example, beak-probing shorebirds use pressure information from the tip of the beak to find buried prey in soft substrates, whereas waterfowl, especially filter-feeding ducks, use information from the beak, palate, and tongue when feeding. Parrots likely require increased sensitivity in the tongue to manipulate food items. Thus, despite all sharing an enlarged PrV and feeding behaviors dependent on tactile input, each group has different requirements that have led to the independent evolution of a large PrV.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 it