MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412097162 · doi:10.1007/s00422-025-01017-1

Incorporating buccal mass planar mechanics and anatomical features improves neuromechanical modeling of Aplysia feeding behavior

2025· article· en· W4412097162 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michael J. Bennington, Ashlee S. Liao, Ravesh Sukhnandan, Bidisha Kundu, Stephen M. Rogers, Jeffrey P. Gill, Jeffrey M. McManus, Gregory P. Sutton, Hillel J. Chiel, Victoria A. Webster‐Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological Cybernetics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCephalopods and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUK Research and InnovationDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftCarnegie Mellon UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAplysiaBiomechanicsComputer scienceKinematicsNeuroscienceBiological neural networkBitingBiological systemArtificial intelligenceAnatomySimulationBiologyEcologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To understand how behaviors arise in animals, it is necessary to investigate both the neural circuits and the biomechanics of the periphery. A tractable model system for studying multifunctional control is the feeding apparatus of the marine mollusk Aplysia californica. Previous in silico and in roboto models have investigated how the nervous and muscular systems interact in this system. However, these models are still limited in their ability to match in vivo data both qualitatively and quantitatively. We introduce a new neuromechanical model of Aplysia feeding that combines a modified version of a previously developed neural model with a novel biomechanical model that better reflects the anatomy and kinematics of Aplysia feeding. The model was calibrated using a combination of previously measured biomechanical parameters and hand-tuning to behavioral data. Using this model, simulated feeding experiments were conducted, and the resulting behavioral metrics were compared to animal data. The model successfully produces three key behaviors seen in Aplysia and demonstrates a good quantitative agreement with biting and swallowing behaviors. Additional work is needed to match rejection behavior quantitatively and to reflect qualitative observations related to the relative contributions of two key muscles, the hinge and I3. Future improvements will focus on incorporating the effects of deformable 3D structures in the simulated buccal mass.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological CyberneticsSame topicCephalopods and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207