1982
DOI: 10.1016/s0065-2806(08)60155-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Chemoreception: The Significance of Receptor Numbers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

5
196
4
2

Year Published

1996
1996
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 321 publications
(213 citation statements)
references
References 324 publications
5
196
4
2
Order By: Relevance
“…As in the 20 1 st stimulation, no significant difference was detected between the effects of stimulation with the A. 21 bruennichii tibia and the glass rod (χ 2 = 2.781, df = 2, P = 0.2489, with Bonferroni correction). 22 We next examined whether the behavioral responses to the 2 nd stimulus were influenced by 23 the preceding 1 st stimulus.…”
mentioning
confidence: 60%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…As in the 20 1 st stimulation, no significant difference was detected between the effects of stimulation with the A. 21 bruennichii tibia and the glass rod (χ 2 = 2.781, df = 2, P = 0.2489, with Bonferroni correction). 22 We next examined whether the behavioral responses to the 2 nd stimulus were influenced by 23 the preceding 1 st stimulus.…”
mentioning
confidence: 60%
“…Each test comprised two successive contacts with one antenna. This stimulation 20 procedure was also based on the observation that crickets encountering a live H. venatoria often probe 21 it with their antennae until subsequent abrupt movement of the predator (Online Resources 5 and 6). 22 The experimenter applied the 1 st stimulus to the middle portion of the antenna manually so that the 23 stimulant provided weak contact with the antenna and remained there for a few seconds.…”
Section: Stimulation Measurements and Analyses 18mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations