Cited by 509Neurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchAdvanced Materials and MechanicsMotor Control and Adaptation

Dimensionality and Dynamics in the Behavior of C. elegans

Open access
Stephens, Greg J., Johnson-Kerner, Bethany, Bialek, William, Ryu, William S.·2008·PLoS Computational Biology

Abstract

A major challenge in analyzing animal behavior is to discover some underlying simplicity in complex motor actions. Here, we show that the space of shapes adopted by the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans is low dimensional, with just four dimensions accounting for 95% of the shape variance. These dimensions provide a quantitative description of worm behavior, and we partially reconstruct "equations of motion" for the dynamics in this space. These dynamics have multiple attractors, and we find that the worm visits these in a rapid and almost completely deterministic response to weak thermal stimuli. Stimulus-dependent correlations among the different modes suggest that one can generate more reliable behaviors by synchronizing stimuli to the state of the worm in shape space. We confirm this prediction, effectively "steering" the worm in real time.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000028

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Fish larvae require only three basis functions to describe their backbone shapes, whereas worms analyzed in prior work required four.

    “fish larvae require only three basis functions to describe their backbone shapes, whereas worms analyzed in [18] required four.”
  • A study of C. elegans by Stephens et al. provided a method to quantify worm locomotion in terms of the worm's shapes.

    “A study of the invertebrate C. elegans by Stephens et al. [18] provided a powerful method to quantify worm locomotion in terms of the worm’s shapes.”
  • Fish exhibit larger behavioral complexity than worms.

    “However, fish exhibit larger behavioral complexity.”

    From The Behavioral Space of Zebrafish Locomotion and Its Neural Network Analog (2015) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Introduction and Results describe the complexity and low-dimensional structure of C. elegans behavior, but do not compare worms with fish. Searches for fish, zebrafish, and comparative behavioral complexity found no passage addressing the claim; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Fish are stiffer than worms thanks to their backbone, leading to a smaller repertoire of accessible shapes of the fish backbone.

    “fish are stiffer than worms thanks to their backbone (see Fig 6D), leading to a smaller repertoire of accessible shapes of the fish backbone.”

    From The Behavioral Space of Zebrafish Locomotion and Its Neural Network Analog (2015) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Results (Eigenworms; page not provided) describe a limited effective dimensionality of C. elegans shapes, but do not compare worms with fish. Searches for fish stiffness, backbones, and accessible shapes found no passage addressing the claimed comparison or its proposed cause. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [2]Bolhuis J Giraldeau L 2004 The Behavior of Animals: Mechanism, Function and Evolution. Oxford Blackwell Publishing

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stephens, G. J., Johnson-Kerner, B., Bialek, W., & Ryu, W. S.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Stephens, Greg J.
  • Ryu, William S.
Venue
PLoS Computational Biology
Published
2008-04-25
Volume
4
Issue
4
Pages
e1000028
ISSN
  • 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7358
OpenAlex
W2142254043
Cited by
509
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 24
FWCI
5.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Advanced Materials and Mechanics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
Caenorhabditis elegans, worm locomotion, body shape, equations of motion, attractors, thermal stimuli, behavioral synchronization
MeSH terms
Animals, Behavior, Animal, Computer Simulation, Gait, Locomotion, Models, Biological, Caenorhabditis elegans

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