Table 1.

Shaving efficiency and percentage of accidentally removed asymmetric setae in aesthetasc ablations

Number of tuft annuli
Sensilla escaping removal
Shaving efficiency (%)AS accidentally removed in AE-ablations
Exp. no.AblationNMean (± s.d.)RangeMean (± s.d.)Mean (± s.d.)(%)
AS– 14 70.7±10.1 0–7 2.3±2.1 96.7 n.a. n.a.
AE– 14 66.6±8.1 0–13 1.9±3.4 99.9 14.5±11.5 ca. 29
AS– 12 70.6±6.8 0–2 0.9±0.8 98.7 n.a. n.a.
AE– 12 74.0±12.8 0–5 1.0±1.4 99.9 14.6±5.7 ca. 20
AE– 12 73.2±4.5 0–4 1.5±1.3 99.9 11.1±3.2 ca. 15
Number of tuft annuli
Sensilla escaping removal
Shaving efficiency (%)AS accidentally removed in AE-ablations
Exp. no.AblationNMean (± s.d.)RangeMean (± s.d.)Mean (± s.d.)(%)
AS– 14 70.7±10.1 0–7 2.3±2.1 96.7 n.a. n.a.
AE– 14 66.6±8.1 0–13 1.9±3.4 99.9 14.5±11.5 ca. 29
AS– 12 70.6±6.8 0–2 0.9±0.8 98.7 n.a. n.a.
AE– 12 74.0±12.8 0–5 1.0±1.4 99.9 14.6±5.7 ca. 20
AE– 12 73.2±4.5 0–4 1.5±1.3 99.9 11.1±3.2 ca. 15

Ablation, type of sensillum that was selectively removed, either Aesthetascs (AE–) or Asymmetric Setae (AS–); N, number of lateral flagella analyzed (note that in Exp. 1, 2, 4, two lateral flagella were lost in processing); Number of tuft annuli, number of annuli bearing aesthetascs and an asymmetric seta after removal of some distal annuli;Sensilla escaping removal, number of sensilla missed in the selective ablation; Shaving efficiency, percentage of removed sensilla relative to entire population (in case of AS; number of tuft annuli set as total number of AS; in case of AE; 1300 taken as estimate of total number of AE according to Laverack, 1964; Gleeson et al., 1993; Cate and Derby, 2001); AS accidentally removed in AE-ablations; number and percentage of asymmetric setae removed unintentionally in aesthetasc ablations.

Close Modal