Optical-flow analysis toolbox for characterization of spatiotemporal dynamics in mesoscale optical imaging of brain activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wide-field optical imaging techniques constitute powerful tools to sample and study mesoscale neuronal activity. The sampled data constitutes a sequence of image frames in which one can perceive the flow of brain activity starting and terminating at source and sink locations respectively. The most common data analyses include qualitative assessment to identify sources and sinks of activity as well as their trajectories. The quantitative analyses is mostly based on computing the temporal variation of the intensity of pixels while a few studies have also reported estimates of wave motion using optical-flow techniques from computer vision. A comprehensive toolbox for the quantitative analyses of mesoscale brain activity data however is still missing. We present a graphical-user-interface based Matlab ® toolbox for investigating the spatiotemporal dynamics of mesoscale brain activity using optical-flow analyses. The toolbox includes the implementation of three optical-flow methods namely Horn-Schunck, Combined Local-Global, and Temporospatial algorithms for estimating velocity vector fields of perceived flow in mesoscale brain activity. From the velocity vector fields we determine the locations of sources and sinks as well as the trajectories and temporal velocities of activity flow. Using our toolbox, we compare the efficacy of the three optical-flow methods for determining spatiotemporal dynamics by using simulated data. We also demonstrate the application of optical-flow methods onto sensory-evoked calcium and voltage imaging data. Our results indicate that the combined local-global method we employ, yields results that correlate with the manual assessment. The automated approach permits rapid and effective quantification of mesoscale brain dynamics and may facilitate the study of brain function in response to new experiences or pathology. Conflicts of Interest none Author contribution statement MHM, MM, NV, and SI designed the study. NA and SI wrote Matlab ® code for the toolbox and designed the simulated data. MHM, and NA performed the experiments. NA and SI analyzed the data. SI, NA, and MHM wrote the manuscript.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.012 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".