Neuromuscular control of hovering wingbeat kinematics in response to distinct flight challenges in the ruby-throated hummingbird (<i>Archilochus colubris</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While producing one of the highest sustained mass-specific power outputs of any vertebrate, hovering hummingbirds must also precisely modulate the activity of their primary flight muscles to vary wingbeat kinematics and modulate lift production. Although recent studies have begun to explore how pectoralis (the primary downstroke muscle) neuromuscular activation and wingbeat kinematics are linked in hummingbirds, it is unclear whether different species modulate these features in similar ways, or consistently in response to distinct flight challenges. In addition, little is known about how the antagonist, the supracoracoideus, is modulated to power the symmetrical hovering upstroke. We obtained simultaneous recordings of wingbeat kinematics and electromyograms from the pectoralis and supracoracoideus in ruby-throated hummingbirds (Archilochus colubris) hovering under the following conditions: (1) ambient air, (2) air density reduction trials, (3) submaximal load-lifting trials and (4) maximal load-lifting trials. Increased power output was achieved through increased stroke amplitude during air density reduction and load-lifting trials, but wingbeat frequency only increased at low air densities. Overall, relative electromyographic (EMG) intensity was the best predictor of stroke amplitude and is correlated with angular velocity of the wingtip. The relationship between muscle activation intensity and kinematics was independent of treatment type, indicating that reduced drag on the wings in hypodense air did not lead to high wingtip angular velocities independently of increased muscle work. EMG bursts consistently began and ended before muscle shortening under all conditions. During all sustained hovering, spike number per burst consistently averaged 1.2 in the pectoralis and 2.0 in the supracoracoideus. The number of spikes increased to 2.5-3 in both muscles during maximal load-lifting trials. Despite the relative kinematic symmetry of the hovering downstroke and upstroke, the supracoracoideus was activated ~1 ms earlier, EMG bursts were longer (~0.9 ms) and they exhibited 1.6 times as many spikes per burst. We hypothesize that earlier and more sustained activation of the supracoracoideus fibres is necessary to offset the greater compliance resulting from the presence of the supracoracoid tendon.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".