JN Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Neurophysiol 64: 64-76, 1990;
0022-3077/90 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kelly, T. M.
Right arrow Articles by Chapple, W. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kelly, T. M.
Right arrow Articles by Chapple, W. D.

Journal of Neurophysiology, Vol 64, Issue 1 64-76, Copyright © 1990 by APS

ARTICLES

Kinematic analysis of the defense response in crayfish

T. M. Kelly and W. D. Chapple
University of Connecticut, Department of Physiology and Neurobiology, Storrs 06268.

1. A threatening visual stimulus frequently elicits the defense response (DR) in crayfish, a behavior that comprises orienting the body to face the stimulus, raising the thorax, and extending and opening the claws. Although this behavior has been reported previously, its kinematics have not been characterized. This work employs kinematic analysis to provide a quantitative description of the claw (cheliped) as it is moved during the DR. 2. The cheliped was modeled as an open kinematic chain with three segments and 4 df. Simulations employing the model were compared with actual cheliped trajectories during the DR to ascertain the applicability of the model. The model was then employed to demonstrate the effects of individual joint rotations on the overall trajectory of the claw. 3. The individual segments of the cheliped were monitored during the DR, and spatial trajectories, tangential velocities, and intersegmental joint angles were calculated. 4. The joint angles assumed at the final position of the DR were highly stereotyped. This constancy in joint angle at the endpoint of the movement stands in contrast to the variability in both the angular and spatial trajectories of the cheliped as it was moved towards the final position. 5. Movement time was relatively constant. Larger amplitude movements were performed with a proportional increase in velocity similar to arm movements in primates. 6. The DR positions the cheliped in a fixed location in the workspace. Unlike the primate arm during reaching, the cheliped does not proceed towards the endpoint with a smooth controlled trajectory characteristic of a system with fine interjoint coordination. Instead, it appears that individual joint rotations are performed independently, thus precluding trajectory control although permitting an accurate specification of the endpoint.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Exp. Biol.Home page
L. M. Koch, B. W. Patullo, and D. L. Macmillan
Exploring with damaged antennae: do crayfish compensate for injuries?
J. Exp. Biol., August 15, 2006; 209(16): 3226 - 3233.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Exp. Biol.Home page
N Copp and M Jamon
Kinematics of rotation in place during defense turning in the crayfish Procambarus clarkii
J. Exp. Biol., January 2, 2001; 204(3): 471 - 486.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Neurophysiol.Home page
L. Bianchi, D. Angelini, G. P. Orani, and F. Lacquaniti
Kinematic Coordination in Human Gait: Relation to Mechanical Energy Cost
J Neurophysiol, April 1, 1998; 79(4): 2155 - 2170.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online