ArticleFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2016
Whisker Contact Detection of Rodents Based on Slow and Fast Mechanical Inputs.
Article in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pre-neuronal processing of haptic sensory cues via dispersive high-frequency vibrational modes.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- A bending fluctuation-based mechanism for particle detection by ciliated structures.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
- Probing in-mouth texture perception with a biomimetic tongue.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2019Article
- An Artificial Vibrissa-Like Sensor for Detection of Flows.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Gravisensors in plant cells behave like an active granular liquid.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Article
- Dynamic cues for whisker-based object localization: An analytical solution to vibration during active whisker touch.PLoS computational biology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rodents use their whiskers to locate nearby objects with an extreme precision. To perform such tasks, they need to detect whisker/object contacts with a high temporal accuracy. This contact detection is conveyed by classes of mechanoreceptors whose neural activity is sensitive to either slow or fast time varying mechanical stresses acting at the base of the whiskers. We developed a biomimetic approach to separate and characterize slow quasi-static and fast vibrational stress signals acting on a whisker base in realistic exploratory phases, using experiments on both real and artificial whiskers. Both slow and fast mechanical inputs are successfully captured using a mechanical model of the whisker. We present and discuss consequences of the whisking process in purely mechanical terms and hypothesize that free whisking in air sets a mechanical threshold for contact detection. The time resolution and robustness of the contact detection strategies based on either slow or fast stress signals are determined. Contact detection based on the vibrational signal is faster and more robust to exploratory conditions than the slow quasi-static component, although both slow/fast components allow localizing the object.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.