Abstract
Summary Muscular hydrostats, muscular structures with no rigid skeleton, are ubiquitous within the animal kingdom, from vertebrate tongues to cephalopod arms 1,2 , but how they perform complex actions remains poorly understood. One model hydrostat studied for its neural control 3–7 and biomechanics 8–17 is the feeding system (buccal mass) of the sea hare Aplysia (Fig. 1). The buccal mass (Fig. 1b) performs multiple feeding behaviors by coordinating intrinsic muscles to move a grasper (odontophore) 18,19 . In this paper, we investigated how mechanical reconfiguration from interacting shape-changing elements facilitates large odontophore protractions. During rejection behaviors, mechanical reconfiguration of the odontophore (elongating its shape to a higher aspect ratio) stretches a protractor muscle (I2), allowing I2 to generate stronger protractions 12 . In biting behaviors, the odontophore has a similar range of motion. However, during biting, the odontophore has a lower aspect ratio throughout protraction, meaning the I2 muscle alone is insufficient to reach observed protractions due to its length/tension property and reduced mechanical advantage 9,10,12,18 . By combining new analysis of MRI movies of Aplysia feeding 12,18 (Fig. 1) with a new biomechanical model for biting and rejection (Fig. 2), we demonstrate two context-dependent mechanical reconfiguration mechanisms that explain the different ways large protractions are produced in biting and rejection (Fig. 3). The mechanisms integrate shape changes, bending and conforming of muscle structures, and shifts in contact interactions. We propose two mechanical subclasses of muscular hydrostats, “constrained” or “unconstrained” (Fig. 4), that may be morphologically similar but employ different control strategies depending on whether mechanical constraints are reliably present.
Full text
1,989 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· click to expand
Summary
Muscular hydrostats, muscular structures with no rigid skeleton, are ubiquitous within the animal kingdom, from vertebrate tongues to cephalopod arms1,2, but how they perform complex actions remains poorly understood. One model hydrostat studied for its neural control3–7 and biomechanics8–17 is the feeding system (buccal mass) of the sea hare Aplysia (Fig. 1). The buccal mass (Fig. 1b) performs multiple feeding behaviors by coordinating intrinsic muscles to move a grasper (odontophore)18,19. In this paper, we investigated how mechanical reconfiguration from interacting shape-changing elements facilitates large odontophore protractions. During rejection behaviors, mechanical reconfiguration of the odontophore (elongating its shape to a higher aspect ratio) stretches a protractor muscle (I2), allowing I2 to generate stronger protractions12. In biting behaviors, the odontophore has a similar range of motion. However, during biting, the odontophore has a lower aspect ratio throughout protraction, meaning the I2 muscle alone is insufficient to reach observed protractions due to its length/tension property and reduced mechanical advantage9,10,12,18. By combining new analysis of MRI movies of Aplysia feeding12,18 (Fig. 1) with a new biomechanical model for biting and rejection (Fig. 2), we demonstrate two context-dependent mechanical reconfiguration mechanisms that explain the different ways large protractions are produced in biting and rejection (Fig. 3). The mechanisms integrate shape changes, bending and conforming of muscle structures, and shifts in contact interactions. We propose two mechanical subclasses of muscular hydrostats, “constrained” or “unconstrained” (Fig. 4), that may be morphologically similar but employ different control strategies depending on whether mechanical constraints are reliably present.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Footnotes
↵13 Lead contact (email: vwebster{at}andrew.cmu.edu)
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.