MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127683068 · doi:10.1242/jeb.054460

Time-varying motor control of autotomized leopard gecko tails: multiple inputs and behavioral modulation

2012· article· en· W2127683068 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy E. Higham, Anthony P. Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutotomyLizardBiologyGeckoRhythmNeuroscienceAnatomyZoologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autotomy (voluntary loss of an appendage) is common among diverse groups of vertebrates and invertebrates, and much attention has been given to ecological and developmental aspects of tail autotomy in lizards. Although most studies have focused on the ramifications for the lizard (behavior, biomechanics, energetics, etc.), the tail itself can exhibit interesting behaviors once segregated from the body. For example, recent work highlighted the ability of leopard gecko tails to jump and flip, in addition to being able to swing back and forth. Little is known, however, about the control mechanisms underlying these movements. Using electromyography, we examined the time-varying in vivo motor patterns at four sites (two proximal and two distal) in the tail of the leopard gecko, Eublepharis macularius, following autotomy. Using these data we tested the hypothesis that the disparity in movements results simply from overlapping pattern generators within the tail. We found that burst duration, but not cycle duration, of the rhythmic swings reached a plateau at approximately 150 s following autotomy. This is likely because of physiological changes related to muscle fatigue and ischemia. For flips and jumps, burst and cycle duration exhibited no regular pattern. The coefficient of variation in motor patterns was significantly greater for jumps and flips than for rhythmic swings. This supports the conclusion that the different tail behaviors do not stem from overlapping pattern generators, but that they rely upon independent neural circuits. The signal controlling jumps and flips may be modified by sensory information from the environment. Finally, we found that jumps and flips are initiated using relatively synchronous activity between the two sides of the tail. In contrast, alternating activation of the right and left sides of the tail result in rhythmic swings. The mechanism underlying this change in tail behavior is comparable to locomotor gait changes in vertebrates.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207