Began pruning the introduction.

.gitignore

@@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ data/*
 *.cb
 *.cb2
 .*.lb
-*.bbl
+*.bbl*
-*.bcf
+*.bcf*
 *.blg
 *-blx.aux
 *-blx.bib
@@ -28,4 +28,4 @@ data/*
 *.synctex(busy)
 *.synctex.gz
 *.synctex.gz(busy)
-*.pdfsync
+*.pdfsync

cite.bib

@@ -253,7 +253,7 @@
   volume={154},
   pages={837--846},
   year={1984},
-}# Cited
+}
 
 @article{helversen1988interaural,
   title={Interaural intensity and time discrimination in an unrestraint grasshopper: a tentative behavioural approach},

main.tex

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 \documentclass[a4paper, 12pt]{article}
 
 \usepackage[left=2cm,right=2cm,top=2cm,bottom=2cm,includeheadfoot]{geometry}
-\usepackage[onehalfspacing]{setspace}
+% \usepackage[onehalfspacing]{setspace}
 \usepackage{graphicx}
 \usepackage{svg}
 \usepackage{import}
@@ -106,95 +106,71 @@
 \newcommand{\pclp}{p(c,\,\tlp)} % Probability density (lowpass interval)
 \newcommand{\muf}{\mu_{f_i}} % Average feature value
 
-\section{Exploring a grasshopper's sensory world}
+\section{Introduction}
 
 % Why functional models of sensory systems?
-Our scientific understanding of sensory processing systems results from the
+Our scientific understanding of sensory processing systems is based on the
-distributed accumulation of anatomical, physiological and ethological evidence.
+distributed accumulation of specific anatomical, physiological, and ethological
-This process is undoubtedly without alternative; however, it leaves us with the
+evidence. This leaves us with the challenge of integrating the available
-challenge of integrating the available fragments into a coherent whole in order
+knowledge fragments into a coherent whole in order to address more and more
-to address issues such as the interaction between individual system components,
+far-reaching questions, from the interaction between individual processing
-the functional limitations of the system overall, or taxonomic comparisons
+steps to comparisons between similar systems across different species. One way
-between systems that process the same sensory modality. Any unified framework
+to deal with this challenge is to build a unified framework that captures the
-that captures the essential functional aspects of a given sensory system thus
+essential functional aspects of a sensory system. However, building such a
-has the potential to deepen our current understanding and fasciliate systematic
+framework is a challenging task in itself. It requires a wealth of existing
-investigations. However, building such a framework is a challenging task. It
+knowledge of the system and the stimuli it operates on, a clearly defined
-requires a wealth of existing knowledge of the system and the signals it
+scope, and careful abstraction of the underlying structures and mechanisms.
-operates on, a clearly defined scope, and careful reduction, abstraction, and
-formalization of the underlying structures and mechanisms.
 
 % Why the grasshopper auditory system?
 % Why focus on song recognition among other auditory functions?
-One sensory system about which extensive information has been gathered over the
+One sensory system that has been extensively studied over the years is the
-years is the auditory system of grasshoppers~(\textit{Acrididae}). Grasshoppers
+auditory system of grasshoppers~(\textit{Acrididae}). Grasshoppers rely on
-rely on their sense of hearing primarily for intraspecific communication, which
+their sense of hearing for intraspecific communication --- including mate
-includes mate attraction~(\bcite{helversen1972gesang}) and
+attraction~(\bcite{helversen1972gesang}) and
 evaluation~(\bcite{stange2012grasshopper}), sender
 localization~(\bcite{helversen1988interaural}), courtship
-display~(\bcite{elsner1968neuromuskularen}), rival
+display~(\bcite{elsner1968neuromuskularen}), and rival
-deterrence~(\bcite{greenfield1993acoustic}), and loss-of-signal predator
+deterrence~(\bcite{greenfield1993acoustic}) --- and have evolved a variety of
-alarm~(SOURCE). In accordance with this rich behavioral repertoire,
+acoustic signals for different behavioral
-grasshoppers have evolved a variety of sound production mechanisms to generate
+contexts~(\bcite{otte1970comparative}). The most conspicuous acoustic signals
-acoustic communication signals for different contexts and ranges using their
+of grasshoppers are their species-specific calling songs, which broadcast the
-wings, hindlegs, or mandibles~(\bcite{otte1970comparative}). Among the most
+presence of the singing individual to potential mates within range. These songs
-conspicuous acoustic signals of grasshoppers are their species-specific calling
+are usually more characteristic of a species than morphological
-songs, which broadcast the presence of the singing individual --- mostly the
-males of the species --- to potential mates within range. These songs are
-usually more characteristic of a species than morphological
 traits~(\bcite{tishechkin2016acoustic}; \bcite{tarasova2021eurasius}), which
 can vary greatly within species~(\bcite{rowell1972variable};
 \bcite{kohler2017morphological}). The reliance on songs to mediate reproduction
-represents a strong evolutionary driving force, that resulted in a massive
+represents a strong evolutionary driving force that resulted in a massive
 species diversification~(\bcite{vedenina2011speciation};
-\bcite{sevastianov2023evolution}), with over 6800 recognized grasshopper
+\bcite{sevastianov2023evolution}), with over 6800 recognized species in the
-species in the \textit{Acrididae} family~(\bcite{cigliano2024orthoptera}). It
+\textit{Acrididae} family~(\bcite{cigliano2024orthoptera}).
-is this diversity of species, and the crucial role of acoustic communication in
+% Could go lower to concluding part:
-its emergence, that makes the grasshopper auditory system an intriguing
+% Its evolutionary significance makes the grasshopper auditory system ---
-candidate for attempting to construct a functional model framework. As a
+% specifically, the pathway responsible for species-specific song recognition
-necessary reduction, the model we propose here focuses on the pathway
+% --- an intriguing candidate for attempting to construct a functional model
-responsible for the recognition of species-specific calling songs, disregarding
+% framework.
-other essential auditory functions such as directional
-hearing~(\bcite{helversen1984parallel}; \bcite{ronacher1986routes};
-\bcite{helversen1988interaural}).
 
-% What are the signals the auditory system is supposed to recognize?
+% What are the signals that the auditory system is supposed to recognize?
-% Why is intensity invariance important for song recognition?
+Grasshopper songs are amplitude-modulated broad-band acoustic signals. They
-% (Obviously, split this paragraph)
+consist of a series of noisy syllables and relatively quiet pauses, which form
-To understand the functional challenges faced by the grasshopper auditory
+a characteristic repetitive pattern~(\bcite{helversen1977stridulatory};
-system, one has to understand the properties of the songs it is designed to
+\bcite{stumpner1994song}). Song recognition depends on certain structural
-recognize. Grasshopper songs are amplitude-modulated broad-band acoustic
+parameters of this pattern --- such as the duration of syllables and
-signals. Most songs are produced by stridulation, during which the animal pulls
-the serrated stridulatory file on its hindlegs across a resonating vein on the
-forewings~(\bcite{helversen1977stridulatory}; \bcite{stumpner1994song};
-\bcite{helversen1997recognition}). Every tooth that strikes the vein generates
-a brief pulse of sound. Multiple pulses make up a syllable; and the alternation
-of syllables and relatively quiet pauses forms a characteristic, through noisy,
-waveform pattern. Song recognition depends on certain temporal and structural
-parameters of this pattern, such as the duration of syllables and
 pauses~(\bcite{helversen1972gesang}), the slope of pulse
 onsets~(\bcite{helversen1993absolute}), and the accentuation of syllable onsets
 relative to the preceeding pause~(\bcite{balakrishnan2001song};
-\bcite{helversen2004acoustic}). The amplitude modulation of the song is
+\bcite{helversen2004acoustic}) --- which are sufficiently conveyed by the
-sufficient for recognition~(\bcite{helversen1997recognition}). However, the
+amplitude modulation of the song alone~(\bcite{helversen1997recognition}).
-essential recognition cues can vary considerably with external physical
+
-factors, which requires the auditory system to be invariant to such variations
+% Why is intensity invariance important for song recognition?
-in order to reliably recognize songs under different conditions. For instance,
+Grasshopper songs, like all acoustic signals, are subject to sound attenuation,
-the temporal structure of grasshopper songs warps with
+which depends on the distance from the sender, the frequency content of the
-temperature~(\bcite{skovmand1983song}). The auditory system can compensate for
+signal, and the vegetation of the habitat~(\bcite{michelsen1978sound}). The
-this variability by reading out relative temporal relationships rather than
+amplitude dynamics of the song pattern degrade fairly quickly, which limits the
-absolute time intervals~(\bcite{creutzig2009timescale};
+effective communication range of grasshoppers to~\mbox{1\,-\,2\,m} in their
-\bcite{creutzig2010timescale}), as those remain relatively constant across
+typical grassland habitats~(\bcite{lang2000acoustic}). Moreover, the intensity
-different temperatures~(\bcite{helversen1972gesang}). Another, perhaps even
+of a song at the receiver's position varies with the location of the sender,
-more fundamental external source of song variability lays in the attenuation of
+which should ideally not affect the recognition of the song.
-sound intensity with increasing distance to the sender. Sound attenuation
+
-depends on both the frequency content of the signal and the vegetation of the
-habitat~(\bcite{michelsen1978sound}). For the receiving auditory system, this
-has two major implications. First, the amplitude dynamics of the song pattern
-are steadily degraded over distance, which limits the effective communication
-range of grasshoppers to~\mbox{1\,-\,2\,m} in their typical grassland
-habitats~(\bcite{lang2000acoustic}). Second, the overall intensity level of
-songs at the receiver's position varies depending on the location of the
-sender, which should ideally not affect the recognition of the song pattern.
 This neccessitates that the auditory system achieves a certain degree of
 intensity invariance --- a time scale-selective sensitivity to faster amplitude
 dynamics and simultaneous insensitivity to slower, more sustained amplitude
@@ -1620,12 +1596,28 @@ natural song variation.
 
 \section{Conclusions \& outlook}
 
+\textbf{The role of repetitive songs for the feature representation:}
+Most grasshopper songs are produced by stridulation, which refers to the
+pulling of the serrated stridulatory file on the hindlegs across a resonating
+vein on the forewings~(\bcite{helversen1977stridulatory};
+\bcite{stumpner1994song}; \bcite{helversen1997recognition}). Every "tooth" that
+strikes the vein generates a brief sound pulse; multiple pulses make up a
+syllable; and the repetition of syllables and pauses results in a
+characteristic amplitude-modulated waveform pattern.
+
+\textbf{Excursion into time-warp invariance:}
+For instance, the temporal structure of grasshopper songs warps with
+temperature~(\bcite{skovmand1983song}). The auditory system can compensate for
+this variability by reading out relative temporal relationships rather than
+absolute time intervals~(\bcite{creutzig2009timescale};
+\bcite{creutzig2010timescale}), as those remain relatively constant across
+different temperatures~(\bcite{helversen1972gesang}).
+
 \textbf{Song recognition pathway: Grasshopper vs. model:}\\
 The model pathway includes a rather large number of Gabor kernels compared to
 the 15 to 20 ascending neurons in the grasshopper auditory
 system~(\bcite{stumpner1991auditory}). 
 
-
 \textbf{Definition of invariance (general, systemic):}\\
 Invariance = Property of a system to maintain a stable output with respect to a
 set of relevant input parameters (variation to be represented) but irrespective