Back

Key kinematic features in early training predict performance of adult female mice in a single pellet reaching and grasping task

Mykins, M.; Wade, E.; An, X.; Lau, B. Y. B.; Krishnan, K.

2021-05-09 animal behavior and cognition
10.1101/2021.05.07.442851 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Detailed analyses of overly trained animal models have been long employed to decipher foundational features of skilled motor tasks and their underlying neurobiology. However, initial trial-and-error features that ultimately give rise to skilled, stereotypic movements, and the underlying neurobiological basis of flexibility in learning, to stereotypic movement in adult animals are still unclear. Knowledge obtained from addressing these questions is crucial to improve quality of life in patients affected by movement disorders. We sought to determine if known kinematic parameters of skilled movement in humans could predict learning of motor efficiency in mice during the single pellet reaching and grasping assay. Mice were food restricted to increase motivation to reach for a high reward food pellet. Their attempts to retrieve the pellet were recorded for 10 minutes a day for continuous 4 days. Individual successful and failed reaches for each mouse were manually tracked using Tracker Motion Analysis Software to extract time series data and kinematic features. We found the number of peaks and time to maximum velocity were strong predictors of individual variation in failure and success, respectively. Overall, our approach validates the use of select kinematic features to describe fine motor skill acquisition in mice and establishes peaks and time to maximum velocity as predictive measure of natural variation in motion efficiency in mice. This manually curated dataset, and kinematic parameters would be useful in comparing with pose estimation generated from deep learning approaches.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.