Back

High-precision spatial analysis of mouse courtship vocalization behavior reveals sex and strain differences

Oliveira-Stahl, G.; Farboud, S.; Sterling, M. L.; Heckman, J. J.; Raalte, B. v.; Lenferink, D.; Stam, A. v. d.; Smeets, C. J. L. M.; Fisher, S. E.; Englitz, B.

2021-10-24 animal behavior and cognition
10.1101/2021.10.22.464496 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Mice display a wide repertoire of vocalizations that varies with sex, strain, and context. Especially during social interaction, mice emit sequences of ultrasonic vocalizations (USVs) of high complexity. As animals of both sexes vocalize, a reliable attribution of USVs to their emitter is essential. The state-of-the-art in sound localization for USVs in 2D allows spatial localization at a resolution of multiple centimeters. However, animals interact at closer ranges, e.g. snout-to-snout. Hence, improved algorithms are required to reliably assign USVs. We present a novel algorithm, SLIM (Sound Localization via Intersecting Manifolds), that achieves a 3-fold improvement in accuracy (12-14.3mm) using only 4 microphones and extends to many microphones and localization in 3D. This accuracy allows reliable assignment of 84.3% of all USVs in our dataset. We apply SLIM to courtship interactions between adult C57Bl/6J wildtype mice and those carrying a heterozygous Foxp2 variant (R552H). The improved spatial accuracy reveals detailed vocalization preferences for specific spatial relations between the mice. Specifically, vocalization probability, duration, Wiener entropy, and frequency level differed in particular spatial relations between WT females, Foxp2-R552H and WT males. In conclusion, the improved attribution of vocalizations to their emitters provides a foundation for better understanding social vocal behaviors.

Matching journals

The top 4 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.