Back

Noninvasive Sleep Scoring in Mice using Electric Field Sensors

Kloefkorn, H.; Aiani, L. M.; Lakhani, A.; Nagesh, S.; Moss, A.; Goolsby, W.; Rehg, J.; Pedersen, N. P.; Hochman, S.

2019-10-07 neuroscience
10.1101/794552 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundRodent sleep scoring in principally reliant on electroencephalogram (EEG) and electromyogram (EMG), but this approach is invasive, can be expensive, and requires expertise and specialized equipment. Affordable, simple to use, and noninvasive ways to accurately quantify rodent sleep are needed.\n\nNew methodWe developed and validated a new method for sleep-wake staging in mice using cost-effective, noninvasive electric field (EF) sensors that detect respiration and other movements. We validated recordings from EF sensors attached to the exterior of specialty chambers used to continuously capture sleep with EEG/EMG, then compared this to EF sensors attached to vivarium home-cages.\n\nResultsEF sensors quantified 3-state sleep architecture (wake, rapid eye movement - REM - sleep, and non-REM sleep) with high agreement (>93%) and comparable inter- and intra-scorer error as expert EEG/EMG scoring. Novices given an instruction document with examples were able to score sleep comparable to expert scorers (>91% agreement). Additionally, EF sensors were able to quantify 3-state sleep scoring in traditional mouse home cages.\n\nComparison with existing methodMost noninvasive sleep assessment technology requires animal contact, altered cage environments, and/or can only discern 2 states of arousal (wake or asleep). The EF sensors are able to discriminate REM from non-REM sleep accurately and from outside the animals home cage.\n\nConclusionsEF sensors provide a simple and reliable method to accurately score 3-state sleep architecture; (i) from outside the typical home cage, (ii) where noninvasive approaches are preferred, or (iii) which EEG/EMG is not possible.\n\nGraphical Abstract\n\nO_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=110 SRC=\"FIGDIR/small/794552v1_ufig1.gif\" ALT=\"Figure 1\">\nView larger version (43K):\norg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1b36cf3org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@b5fdc9org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@28a6dforg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@e39a5a_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_FIG C_FIG

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Visualized Experiments
30 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.6%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 13%
14.4%
3
Sleep
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
4
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
38 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
5
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.9%
6
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
50% of probability mass above
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.6%
8
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
106 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.6%
9
Journal of Sleep Research
31 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
10
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
11
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.4%
12
STAR Protocols
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
13
Journal of Neural Engineering
197 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
14
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
15
Sleep Medicine
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
16
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
17
Behavior Research Methods
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
18
Current Protocols
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.2%
19
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
20
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 26%
0.9%
21
Neuroinformatics
40 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
22
Journal of Biological Rhythms
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
23
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
24
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
25
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
46 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%