Using Generative and Explainable Neural Networks to Investigate the Relationship Between Motor Cortex Activity and Animal Behavior During Motor Task Learning.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding complex relations between neuronal activity and animal behavior is one of the most crucial questions in neuroscience. Rapid advancements in Machine Learning (ML) methods offer new powerful tools that can be used to investigate highly non-linear mapping between motor cortex activity and body movements. Here, by using explainable convolutional network (ConvNet) and Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN), we show how neuronal activity can be predicted from raw videos of animal behavior, and interestingly, we show that detailed videos of behaving animals can be recreated from activity of just few selected neurons. Those analyses revealed that the predictability of behavior from neuronal activity (and vice versa) initially increases as an animal learns a new task. However, after the animal performance on a motor task achieves the required accuracy, then “coupling” between neuronal activity and behavior decreases, without degrading task performance. In summary, we show how new ML methods could be applied to provide new insights in the relation between neuronal activity and behavior.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".