Further study by Andrew R. Cuff and Rayfield in 2013 on the skulls of "Spinosaurus" and "Baryonyx" did not recover similarities in the skulls of "Baryonyx" and the gharial that the previous study did. "Baryonyx" had, in models where the size difference of the skulls was corrected for, greater resistance to torsion and dorsoventral bending than both "Spinosaurus" and the gharial, while both spinosaurids were inferior to the gharial, alligator, and slender-snouted crocodile in resisting torsion and medio-lateral bending. When the results from the modeling were not scaled according to size, then both spinosaurids performed better than all the crocodilians in resistance to bending and torsion, due to their larger size. Thus, Cuff and Rayfield suggested that the skulls were not efficiently built to deal well with relatively large, struggling prey, but that spinosaurids may overcome prey simply by their size advantage, and not skull build. In 2002, Hans-Dieter Sues and colleagues studied the construction of the spinosaurid skull, and concluded that their mode of feeding was to use extremely quick, powerful strikes to seize small prey items using their jaws, whilst employing the powerful neck muscles in rapid up-and-down motion. Due to the narrow snout, vigorous side-to-side motion of the skull during prey capture is unlikely. Based on the size and positions of their nostrils, Marcos Sales and Cesar Schultz in 2017 suggested that "Spinosaurus" possessed a greater reliance on its sense of smell and had a more piscivorous lifestyle than "Irritator" and baryonychines.