MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2189068597 · doi:10.7759/cureus.397

An Automated Motion Detection and Reward System for Animal Training

2015· article· en· W2189068597 on OpenAlexaff
Brad Miller, Audrey Lim, Arnold F. Heidbreder, Kevin J. Black

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsTrainerFunctional magnetic resonance imagingSession (web analytics)NeuroimagingStimulus (psychology)Training systemComputer scienceMedicineSoftwareComputer hardwareHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A variety of approaches has been used to minimize head movement during functional brain imaging studies in awake laboratory animals. Many laboratories expend substantial effort and time training animals to remain essentially motionless during such studies. We could not locate an "off-the-shelf" automated training system that suited our needs. We developed a time- and labor-saving automated system to train animals to hold still for extended periods of time. The system uses a personal computer and modest external hardware to provide stimulus cues, monitor movement using commercial video surveillance components, and dispense rewards. A custom computer program automatically increases the motionless duration required for rewards based on performance during the training session but allows changes during sessions. This system was used to train cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis) for awake neuroimaging studies using positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The automated system saved the trainer substantial time, presented stimuli and rewards in a highly consistent manner, and automatically documented training sessions. We have limited data to prove the training system's success, drawn from the automated records during training sessions, but we believe others may find it useful. The system can be adapted to a range of behavioral training/recording activities for research or commercial applications, and the software is freely available for non-commercial use.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207