Back

Remote automated delivery of mechanical stimuli coupled to brain recordings in behaving mice

Burdge, J.; Jhumka, A.; Khan, A.; Ogundare, S.; Baer, N.; Fulton, S.; Kaplan, A.; Bistis, B.; Foster, W.; Thackray, J.; Toussaint, A.; Li, M.; Morizawa, Y. M.; Nazarian, J.; Yadessa, L.; George, A.; Delinois, A.; Mayiseni, W.; Loran, N.; Yang, G.; Margolis, D. J.; Abraira, V. E. G.; Abdus-Saboor, I.

2025-06-08 neuroscience
10.1101/2024.05.06.592101 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The canonical framework for testing pain and mechanical sensitivity in rodents is manual delivery of stimuli to the paw. However, this approach is time consuming, produces variability in results, requires significant training, and is ergonomically unfavorable to the experimenter. To circumvent limitations in manual delivery of stimuli, we have created a device called the ARM (Automated Reproducible Mechano-stimulator). Built using a series of linear stages, cameras, and stimulus holders, the ARM is more accurate at hitting the desired target, delivers stimuli faster, and decreases variability in delivery of von Frey hair filaments. We demonstrate that the ARM can be combined with traditional measurements of pain behavior and automated machine-learning based pipelines. Importantly, the ARM enables remote testing of mice with experimenters outside the testing room. Using remote testing, we found that mice habituated more quickly when an experimenter was not present and experimenter presence leads to significant sex-dependent differences in paw withdrawal and pain associated behaviors. Lastly, to demonstrate the utility of the ARM for neural circuit dissection of pain mechanisms, we combined the ARM with cellular-resolved microendoscopy in the amygdala, linking stimulus, behavior, and brain activity of amygdala neurons that encode negative pain states. Taken together, the ARM improves speed, accuracy, and robustness of mechanical pain assays and can be combined with automated pain detection systems and brain recordings to map central control of pain.

Published in eLife (predicted rank #3) · training set

Matching journals

The top 5 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.