Fin and body neuromuscular coordination changes during walking and swimming in<i>Polypterus senegalus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to modulate the function of muscle is integral to an animal's ability to function effectively in the face of widely disparate challenges. This modulation of function can manifest through short-term changes in neuromuscular control, but also through long-term changes in force profiles, fatigability, and architecture. However, the relative extent to which shorter-term modulation and longer-term plasticity govern locomotor flexibility remains unclear. Here, we obtain simultaneously-recorded kinematic and muscle activity data of fin and body musculature of an amphibious fish, Polypterus senegalus. After examining swimming and walking behaviour in aquatically-raised individuals, we show that walking behaviour is characterized by greater absolute duration of muscle activity in most muscles when compared with swimming, but that the magnitude of recruitment during walking is only increased in the secondary bursts of fin muscle and in the primary burst of the mid-body point. This localized increase in intensity suggests that walking in P. senegalus is powered in a few key locations on the fish, contrasting with the more distributed, low intensity muscle force that characterizes the stroke cycle during swimming. Finally, the increased intensity in secondary, but not primary, bursts of the fin muscles when walking likely underscores the importance of antagonistic muscle activity to prevent fin collapse, add stabilization, and increase body support. Understanding the principles that underlie the flexibility of muscle function can provide key insights into the sources of animal functional and behavioural diversity.
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 | 0.001 | 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".