sciscape Publications
← All publications

In 19 upright ctenophore cilia records, imaging plane could not be separated from recording date

We tested whether released cilia recordings support a link between statocyst wiring and a difference between imaging planes. We used 19 upright records from a fixed source version. We reproduced all 18 finite published correlations, with maximum error 1.11e-16. The metadata assign eight tentacular records to two samples on one date. Eleven sagittal records came from eight samples on seven other dates. With one mean per sample and intact 20-second windows, the tentacular-minus-sagittal correlation difference was 0.341. A nominal 95% Welch interval was -0.516 to 1.198. This interval assumes independent sample means and a Student approximation. More directly, the tentacular-plane indicator equals the 1 August 2023 date indicator. The matrix for eight date effects plus plane has rank eight, not nine. Thus, a model with free additive date effects cannot give a unique plane effect. A stated count-weight model also shows that input overlap alone is not a quantitative account of the observed order. These results limit a specific structure-function inference. They do not show equal function between planes or exclude neural coordination. The package contains source data, hashes, new code, all results, figures, and reproduction instructions.

connectome · ctenophore · statocyst · cilia · structure and function · replication · recording date · correlation

Admitted 1 citing publication

References

3
  1. challengesdoi:10.7554/eLife.108420.3

    We reproduce the beat correlations but show that the released upright design cannot separate plane and date. We do not challenge the anatomy or the separate arrest timing experiment.

  2. usesdoi:10.5281/zenodo.15861953

    This DOI identifies the source compendium. Our actual inputs use the later GitHub commit ccdc5b2d8e897dcb4d1df1d4a651b6925844320a. The publication records the version difference and input hashes.

  3. supportsdoi:10.1186/1471-2202-11-5

    This prior methods study explains why repeated observations need an explicit unit of replication.

Cited by

1 publication

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.