Experimental and theoretical probe on mechano- and chemosensory integration in the insect antennal lobe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In nature, olfactory signals are delivered to detectors—for example, insect antennae—by means of turbulent air, which exerts concurrent chemical and mechanical stimulation on the detectors. The antennal lobe, which is traditionally viewed as a chemosensory module, sits downstream of antennal inputs. We review experimental evidence showing that, in addition to being a chemosensory structure, antennal lobe neurons also respond to mechanosensory input in the form of wind speed. Benchmarked with empirical data, we constructed a dynamical model to simulate bimodal integration in the antennal lobe, with model dynamics yielding insights such as a positive correlation between the strength of mechanical input and the capacity to follow high frequency odor pulses, an important task in tracking odor sources. Furthermore, we combine experimental and theoretical results to develop a conceptual framework for viewing the functional significance of sensory integration within the antennal lobe. We formulate the testable hypothesis that the antennal lobe alternates between two distinct dynamical regimes, one which benefits odor plume tracking and one which promotes odor discrimination. We postulate that the strength of mechanical input, which correlates with behavioral contexts such being mid-flight versus hovering near a flower, triggers the transition from one regime to the other.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".