|
| |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
|
Fig. 7. Proposed model for the mechanics of a superficial neuromast compared with
the mechanics of a canal neuromast. (A) The major morphological features of a
superficial neuromast each have a functional analog. (B) The proposed model
consists of a flexible two-part beam that is driven by a boundary layer of
water flow and coupled to a linear pivotal spring at its base. The presence of
kinocilia causes the proximal part of this beam to be substantially stiffer
than the distal part, which consists solely of matrix material. The morphology
and mechanics of superficial neuromasts is contrasted with (C,D) the model for
a canal neuromast (van Netten and Kroese,
1987). (C) The same major anatomical features of a superficial
neuromast are present in the canal neuromast, but (D) kinocilia do not play a
functional role that is distinct from the hair bundles, which collectively
function as a linear spring. Furthermore, the cupula is modeled as a rigid
hemispherical body that is coupled to the hair bundles. The freestream flow
within the canal is not greatly influenced by boundary layer dynamics for the
frequencies to which these neuromasts are sensitive
(van Netten, 2006) and may
therefore be modeled as a uniform freestream.
|
