MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385612231 · doi:10.1101/2023.08.03.551752

An adaptable, reusable, and light implant for chronic Neuropixels probes

2023· preprint· en· W4385612231 on OpenAlexaff
Célian Bimbard, Flóra Takács, Joana Catarino, Julie MJ Fabre, Shivani Gupta, Stephen C. Lenzi, Maxwell D Melin, Nathanael O’Neill, Ivana Oršolić, Magdalena Robacha, James S Street, J. Teixeira, StJohn Townsend, Enny H. van Beest, Aixinye Zhang, Anne K. Churchland, Chunyu A. Duan, Kenneth D. Harris, Dimitri M. Kullmann, Gabriele Lignani, Zachary F. Mainen, Troy W. Margrie, Nathalie L. Rochefort, Andrew M. Wikenheiser, Matteo Carandini, Philip Coen

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics research
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Centre
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilDirectorate for Biological SciencesNational Institutes of HealthEuropean CommissionJosiah Macy Jr. FoundationEuropean Molecular Biology OrganizationWellcome TrustGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsImplantComputer scienceNanotechnologyMaterials scienceMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrophysiology has proven invaluable to record neural activity, and the development of Neuropixels probes dramatically increased the number of recorded neurons. These probes are often implanted acutely, but acute recordings cannot be performed in freely moving animals and the recorded neurons cannot be tracked across days. To study key behaviors such as navigation, learning, and memory formation, the probes must be implanted chronically. An ideal chronic implant should (1) allow stable recordings of neurons for weeks; (2) allow reuse of the probes after explantation; (3) be light enough for use in mice. Here, we present the "Apollo Implant", an open-source and editable device that meets these criteria and accommodates up to two Neuropixels 1.0 or 2.0 probes. The implant comprises a "payload" module which is attached to the probe and is recoverable, and a "docking" module which is cemented to the skull. The design is adjustable, making it easy to change the distance between probes, the angle of insertion, and the depth of insertion. We tested the implant across eight labs in head-fixed mice, freely moving mice, and freely moving rats. The number of neurons recorded across days was stable, even after repeated implantations of the same probe. The Apollo implant provides an inexpensive, lightweight, and flexible solution for reusable chronic Neuropixels recordings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.239 · 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.

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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics researchFrench-language works237,207