Body and Tail Coordination in the Bluespot Salamander (Ambystoma laterale) During Limb Regeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals are incredibly good at adapting to changes in their environment, a trait envied by most roboticists. Many animals use different gaits to seamlessly transition between land and water and move through non-uniform terrains. In addition to adjusting to changes in their environment, animals can adjust their locomotion to deal with missing or regenerating limbs. Salamanders are an amphibious group of animals that can regenerate limbs, tails, and even parts of the spinal cord in some species. After the loss of a limb, the salamander successfully adjusts to constantly changing morphology as it regenerates the missing part. This quality is of particular interest to roboticists looking to design devices that can adapt to missing or malfunctioning components. While walking, an intact salamander uses its limbs, body, and tail to propel itself along the ground. Its body and tail are coordinated in a distinctive wave-like pattern. Understanding how their bending kinematics change as they regrow lost limbs would provide important information to roboticists designing amphibious machines meant to navigate through unpredictable and diverse terrain. We amputated both hindlimbs of blue-spotted salamanders (Ambystoma laterale) and measured their body and tail kinematics as the limbs regenerated. We quantified the change in the body wave over time and compared them to an amphibious fish species, Polypterus senegalus. We found that salamanders in the early stages of regeneration shift their kinematics, mostly around their pectoral girdle, where there is a local increase in undulation frequency. Amputated salamanders also show a reduced range of preferred walking speeds and an increase in the number of bending waves along the body. This work could assist roboticists working on terrestrial locomotion and water to land transitions.
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".