Reviewer #2 (Public review): Real-Time Closed-Loop Feedback System For Mouse Mesoscale Cortical Signal And Movement Control: CLoPy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasingly, experiments designed to provide practical perturbations to circuits or behavior are required for hypothesis testing in various disciplines ranging from motor learning to recovery after injury. We present the implementation and efficacy of an open-source closed-loop neurofeedback (CLNF) and closed-loop movement feedback (CLMF) system. In CLNF, we measure mm-scale cortical mesoscale activity with GCaMP6s and provide graded auditory feedback (within ∼63 ms) based on changes in dorsal-cortical activation within regions of interest (ROI) and with a specified rule. Single or dual ROIs (ROI1, ROI2) on the dorsal cortical map were selected as targets. Both motor and sensory regions supported closed-loop training in male and female mice. Mice modulated activity in rule-specific target cortical ROIs to get increasing rewards over days (RM ANOVA p=2.83e-5) and adapted to changes in ROI rules (RM ANOVA p=8.3e-10, Table 4 for different rule changes). In CLMF, feedback (within ∼67 ms) was based on tracking a specified body movement, and rewards were generated when the behavior reached a threshold. For movement training, the group that received graded auditory feedback performed significantly better (RM-ANOVA p=9.6e-7) than a control group (RM-ANOVA p=0.49) within four training days. Additionally, mice can learn a change in task rule from left forelimb to right forelimb within a day, after a brief performance drop on day 5. Offline analysis of neural data and behavioral tracking revealed changes in the overall distribution of Ca2+ fluorescence values in CLNF and body-part speed values in CLMF experiments. Increased CLMF performance was accompanied by a decrease in task latency and cortical ΔF/F0 amplitude during the task, indicating lower cortical activation as the task gets more familiar.
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 | 0.044 | 0.218 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.039 |
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".