Behavioral decoding of <i>Drosophila</i> locomotion in a circular arena
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motion detection and position tracking of animal behavior over a period of time produce massive amount of information, but analysis and interpretation of such huge datasets are challenging. Here we describe statistical methods to extract major movement structures of Drosophila locomotion in a circular arena, and examine the effects of pulsed light stimulation on these identified locomotor structures. Drosophila adults performed exploratory behavior when restrained individually in the circular arenas (1.27 cm diameter 0.3 cm depth). Measures of the distance to the center of the arena followed a gumbel distribution with mixed components. Representation learning of distance to center from 177,000 observations (from 63 controls and 55 flies with pulsed light stimulation) revealed three major movement components, indicating three locomotor structures characterized as: side-wall walk, angle walk and cross of the central region. Pulsed flies showed reduced cross of the central region compared with controls. We also showed that counter-clockwise walk and clockwise walk were the two major rotation behaviors with equal time proportion. There was a peak relative turning angle at 25.6 o for counter-clockwise walk, and 334.4 o for clockwise walk. Regression analysis of relative turning angle as a function of distance to center indicated that as distance to center increased, flies switched turning from directions for perimeter-returning to directions for major rotation. Pulsed flies reduced trajectories that had irregular circle-shape and increased trajectories with regular circle-shape during rotation. Taken together, we present a feasible approach to extract major locomotor structures of Drosophila locomotion in a circular arena, and demonstrate how pulsed light stimulation increased the regularity of locomotor trajectory.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".