# Talk:Proprioceptors and Models of Transduction

Summary

The article considers muscle proprioception provided by muscle spindles and Golgi tendon organs. Models of the structure and function of these mechanoreceptors are reviewed in the article.

The muscle spindle transduction is first considered; structural models that are based on the anatomy and the physiology of the spindles are initially reviewed, followed by a review of a black box model. The review covers the main structural spindle models that have been developed over time, from an early model that moved towards using model elements that corresponded to physiological entities in the spindle, to more recent complex spindle models, as well as a black box model.

Golgi tendon organs (tension-sensitive mechanoreceptors) models are then reviewed. Two models are presented, with details on the application of one of these models to a larger model of ensemble GTO firing.

The Figure references and captions appear to be wrong in some cases and should be changed before approval. In particular,

- Figure 3 appears to shows the model components from Lin and Crago (2002), but is referenced in the section on the Structural model of Schaafsma et al. 1991 and also stated in the caption as being from Schaafsma et al. 1991.

- Figure 4 is stated to be The structural spindle model by Lin and Crago (2002)’, but this caption seems to actually apply to figure 3 and does not match what is shown in Figure 4, it seems the reference to figure 4 in the text should also point to figure 3.

- The caption for figure 4 does not make sense and what figure 4 actually shows doesn’t appear to be referenced in the text.

- The reference to figure 11 in the text towards the start of the section Model of Mileusnic and Leob 2006’ should be to figure 10.

- Referring to the ‘figure above’ in the subsection called ‘Dynamic and static responses’ with no reference to a figure number does not make sense given the layout of the article

- In the subsection called self- and cross-adaptation’ the reference to Figure 4 seems wrong. Other Suggestions,

- It might be nice to provide a short summary on the structure of the muscle spindle in the text of section 1. Muscle spindle. This would provide context to descriptions of components of the muscle spindle models that follow in the subsequent section.

- Figure 2. Is not referenced in the text

- More details in the model figure captions – especially regarding the subfigures, A, B, and C of Figure 3, and in Figure 4 would add to clarity (see also previous comments on the caption and figures mismatch).

- The sentence at the start of structural model of Schaafsama et al. 1991’ is confuse, likely to be caused by a missing bracket and punctuation between Figure 3 and One (see also previous comments on the caption and figures mismatch).

- More citations in some places would help to support statements being made and provide context for a more general audience. For example in the section titled ‘Intrafusal fiber models’ a reference to Hill-type muscle models could be provided, and in the section titled `Primary and secondary afferent’ at the end of the second paragraph a reference to where different behaviours have been observed in shortening could be provided.