Experimental and corresponding modeling studies indicate that there is a 2- to 5-fold variation of intrinsic and synaptic parameters across animals while functional output is maintained. Here, we review experiments, using the heartbeat central pattern generator (CPG) in medicinal leeches, which explore the consequences of animal-to-animal variation in synaptic strength for coordinated motor output. We focus on a set of segmental heart motor neurons that all receive inhibitory synaptic input from the same four premotor interneurons. These four premotor inputs fire in a phase progression and the motor neurons also fire in a phase progression because of differences in synaptic strength profiles of the four inputs among segments. Our work tested the hypothesis that functional output is maintained in the face of animal-to-animal variation in the absolute strength of connections because relative strengths of the four inputs onto particular motor neurons is maintained across animals. Our experiments showed that relative strength is not strictly maintained across animals even as functional output is maintained, and animal-to-animal variations in strength of particular inputs do not correlate strongly with output phase. Further experiments measured the precise temporal pattern of the premotor inputs, the segmental synaptic strength profiles of their connections onto motor neurons, and the temporal pattern (phase progression) of those motor neurons all in the same animal for a series of 12 animals. The analysis of input and output in this sample of 12 individuals suggests that the number (four) of inputs to each motor neuron and the variability of the temporal pattern of input from the CPG across individuals weaken the influence of the strength of individual inputs. Moreover, the temporal pattern of the output varies as much across individuals as that of the input. Essentially, each animal arrives at a unique solution for how the network produces functional output.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 November 2011.
All research outputs
#28,633,246
of 34,400,738 outputs
Outputs from Integrative & Comparative Biology
#1,678
of 1,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,787
of 165,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Integrative & Comparative Biology
#29
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,400,738 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,916 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 165,885 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
