Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 206

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A quantitative analysis of the geometry of cat motoneurons innervating neck and shoulder muscles

Rose, P. K., Keirstead, S. A., Vanner, S. J.·1985·Journal of Comparative Neurology

Abstract

The geometry of the somata and dendritic trees of motoneurons innervating neck and shoulder muscles was investigated by using intracellular injections of HRP. In general, these motoneurons did not belong to a homogeneous population of motoneurons. Differences in average primary dendritic diameter, number of primary dendrites, and other measures of dendritic tree size were found between different neck and shoulder motoneuron groups. Several indices of proximal dendritic tree size (number of primary dendrites, sum of dendritic diameters, Rall's dendritic trunk parameter, and the sum of dendritic holes) were weakly correlated with the diameter or surface area of the soma. Some of these correlations depended on the muscle supplied by the motoneuron. The total combined dendritic length ranged from 66,660 to 95,390 μm. There was a weak, but positive, correlation between the diameter of primary dendrites and combined dendritic length. This relationship varied from motoneuron to motoneuron. The diameters of all dendrites of three trapezius motoneurons were examined in detail. The total dendritic surface area examined ranged from 415,000 to 488,100 μm 2 and represented approximately 99% of the total neuronal surface area. Last‐order dendrites showed a high degree (39.9%) of taper. Dendritic tapering, by itself, was a major factor in the decrease of the (sum of dendritic diameters)3/2 measured at progressively distal sites from the soma. Although few parent and daughter dendrites obeyed the “three‐halves law,” the average exponent was 1.57. The diameters of primary dendrites and dendritic surface area were weakly correlated. The correlation between dendritic diameter and combined dendritic length or surface area improved if the weighted average of the diameter of second‐order dendrites was used as a measure of dendrite size. Second‐order dendrites, whose branches terminated in different regions of the spinal cord, showed different relationships between dendritic diameter and combined dendritic length or surface area. Comparisons between the motoneurons examined in the present study and motoneurons innervating other muscles indicate that, although all spinal motoneurons share several common features (e.g., long dendrites, dendritic tapering), each motoneuron group has a set of unique features (e.g., soma shape, relationship between primary dendrite diameter and dendritic surface area). Thus, the rules governing motoneuron dendritic geometry are not fixed but depend on the species of the motoneuron.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cne.902390108

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 206

Metadata

Authors
Rose, P. K., Keirstead, S. A., & Vanner, S. J.
Venue
Journal of Comparative Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1985-09
Volume
239
Issue
1
Pages
89-107
ISSN
  • 0021-9967 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9861
OpenAlex
W2095294890
Cited by
206
References
0
FWCI
1.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A quantitative analysis of the geometry of cat motoneurons innervating neck and shoulder muscles. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cne.902390108
The paper
Rose, P. K., Keirstead, S. A., & Vanner, S. J. (1985). A quantitative analysis of the geometry of cat motoneurons innervating neck and shoulder muscles. Journal of Comparative Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.902390108

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.