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. . | Ablation . | N . | Mean (± s.d.) . | Range . | Mean (± s.d.) . | . | Mean (± s.d.) . | (%) . | ||
| 1 | AS– | 14 | 70.7±10.1 | 0–7 | 2.3±2.1 | 96.7 | n.a. | n.a. | ||
| 2 | AE– | 14 | 66.6±8.1 | 0–13 | 1.9±3.4 | 99.9 | 14.5±11.5 | ca. 29 | ||
| 3 | AS– | 12 | 70.6±6.8 | 0–2 | 0.9±0.8 | 98.7 | n.a. | n.a. | ||
| 3 | AE– | 12 | 74.0±12.8 | 0–5 | 1.0±1.4 | 99.9 | 14.6±5.7 | ca. 20 | ||
| 4 | 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. . | Ablation . | N . | Mean (± s.d.) . | Range . | Mean (± s.d.) . | . | Mean (± s.d.) . | (%) . | ||
| 1 | AS– | 14 | 70.7±10.1 | 0–7 | 2.3±2.1 | 96.7 | n.a. | n.a. | ||
| 2 | AE– | 14 | 66.6±8.1 | 0–13 | 1.9±3.4 | 99.9 | 14.5±11.5 | ca. 29 | ||
| 3 | AS– | 12 | 70.6±6.8 | 0–2 | 0.9±0.8 | 98.7 | n.a. | n.a. | ||
| 3 | AE– | 12 | 74.0±12.8 | 0–5 | 1.0±1.4 | 99.9 | 14.6±5.7 | ca. 20 | ||
| 4 | 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.