Marker-based XROMM requires software tools for: (1) correcting fluoroscope distortion; (2) calibrating X-ray cameras; (3) tracking radio-opaque markers; and (4) calculating rigid body motion. In this paper we describe and validate XMALab, a new open-source software package for marker-based XROMM (C++ source and compiled versions on Bitbucket). Most marker-based XROMM studies to date have used XrayProject in MATLAB. XrayProject can produce results with excellent accuracy and precision, but it is somewhat cumbersome to use and requires a MATLAB license. We have designed XMALab to accelerate the XROMM process and to make it more accessible to new users. Features include the four XROMM steps (listed above) in one cohesive user interface, real-time plot windows for detecting errors, and integration with an online data management system, XMAPortal. Accuracy and precision of XMALab when tracking markers in a machined object are ±0.010 and ±0.043 mm, respectively. Mean precision for nine users tracking markers in a tutorial dataset of minipig feeding was ±0.062 mm in XMALab and ±0.14 mm in XrayProject. Reproducibility of 3D point locations across nine users was 10-fold greater in XMALab than in XrayProject, and six degree-of-freedom bone motions calculated with a joint coordinate system were 3-to 6-fold more reproducible in XMALab. XMALab is also suitable for tracking white or black markers in standard light videos with optional checkerboard calibration. We expect XMALab to increase both the quality and quantity of animal motion data available for comparative biomechanics research.

Most aquatic vertebrates use suction to capture food, relying on rapid expansion of the mouth cavity to accelerate water and food into the mouth. In ray-finned fishes, mouth expansion is both fast and forceful, and therefore requires considerable power. However, the cranial muscles of these fishes are relatively small and may not be able to produce enough power for suction expansion. The axial swimming muscles of these fishes also attach to the feeding apparatus and have the potential to generate mouth expansion. Because of their large size, these axial muscles could contribute substantial power to suction feeding. To determine whether suction feeding is powered primarily by axial muscles, we measured the power required for suction expansion in largemouth bass and compared it to the power capacities of the axial and cranial muscles. Using X-ray reconstruction of moving morphology (XROMM), we generated 3D animations of the mouth skeleton and created a dynamic digital endocast to measure the rate of mouth volume expansion. This time-resolved expansion rate was combined with intraoral pressure recordings to calculate the instantaneous power required for suction feeding. Peak expansion powers for all but the weakest strikes far exceeded the maximum power capacity of the cranial muscles. The axial muscles did not merely contribute but were the primary source of suction expansion power and generated up to 95% of peak expansion power. The recruitment of axial muscle power may have been crucial for the evolution of high-power suction feeding in ray-finned fishes.epaxial | hypaxial | XROMM | muscle power | volume

Suction-feeding fish rapidly expand the mouth cavity to generate high-velocity fluid flows that accelerate food into the mouth. Such fast and forceful suction expansion poses a challenge, as muscle power is limited by muscle mass and the muscles in fish heads are relatively small. The largemouth bass powers expansion with its large body muscles, with negligible power produced by the head muscles (including the sternohyoideus). However, bluegill sunfishwith powerful strikes but different morphology and feeding behaviormay use a different balance of cranial and axial musculature to power feeding and different power outputs from these muscles. We estimated the power required for suction expansion in sunfish from measurements of intraoral pressure and rate of volume change, and measured muscle length and velocity. Unlike largemouth bass, the sternohyoideus did shorten to generate power, but it and other head muscles were too small to contribute more than 5-10% of peak expansion power in sunfish. We found no evidence of catapult-style power amplification. Instead, sunfish powered suction feeding by generating high power outputs (up to 438 W kg −1) from their axial muscles. These muscles shortened across the cranial half of the body as in bass, but at faster speeds that may be nearer the optimum for power production. Sunfish were able to generate strikes of the same absolute power as bass, but with 30-40% of the axial muscle mass. Thus, species may use the body and head muscles differently to meet the requirements of suction feeding, depending on their morphology and behavior.