MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024533393 · doi:10.7554/elife.55964

Automated task training and longitudinal monitoring of mouse mesoscale cortical circuits using home cages

2020· article· en· W3024533393 on OpenAlexafffund
Timothy H. Murphy, Nicholas J. Michelson, Jamie D. Boyd, Tony Fong, Luis Bolaños, David Bierbrauer, Teri Siu, Matilde Balbi, Federico Bolaños, Matthieu P. Vanni, Jeff M. LeDue

Bibliographic record

VenueeLife · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondation LeducqNational Institutes of HealthMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsLickingNeuroscienceTask (project management)Cortex (anatomy)Motor cortexPsychologyComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report improved automated open-source methodology for head-fixed mesoscale cortical imaging and/or behavioral training of home cage mice using Raspberry Pi-based hardware. Staged partial and probabilistic restraint allows mice to adjust to self-initiated headfixation over 3 weeks' time with ~50% participation rate. We support a cue-based behavioral licking task monitored by a capacitive touch-sensor water spout. While automatically head-fixed, we acquire spontaneous, movement-triggered, or licking task-evoked GCaMP6 cortical signals. An analysis pipeline marked both behavioral events, as well as analyzed brain fluorescence signals as they relate to spontaneous and/or task-evoked behavioral activity. Mice were trained to suppress licking and wait for cues that marked the delivery of water. Correct rewarded go-trials were associated with widespread activation of midline and lateral barrel cortex areas following a vibration cue and delayed frontal and lateral motor cortex activation. Cortical GCaMP signals predicted trial success and correlated strongly with trial-outcome dependent body movements.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations45
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeLifeSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207