ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2020
Automated classification of acoustic startle reflex waveforms in young CBA/CaJ mice using machine learning.
Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying tinnitus in mice by tracking the motion of body markers in response to an acoustic startle.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Universal automated classification of the acoustic startle reflex using machine learning.Hearing research · 2023Article
- Congenital Deafness and Recent Advances Towards Restoring Hearing Loss.Current protocols · 2021Article
- Machine learning, waveform preprocessing and feature extraction methods for classification of acoustic startle waveforms.MethodsX · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe acoustic startle response (ASR) is a simple reflex that results in a whole body motor response after animals hear a brief loud sound and is used as a multisensory tool across many disciplines. Unfortunately, a method of how to record, process, and analyze ASRs has yet to be standardized, leading to high variability in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of ASRs within and between laboratories. NEW
methodASR waveforms collected from young adult CBA/CaJ mice were normalized with features extracted from the waveform, the resulting power spectral density estimates, and the continuous wavelet transforms. The features were then partitioned into training and test/validation sets. Machine learning methods from different families of algorithms were used to combine startle-related features into robust predictive models to predict whether an ASR waveform is a startle or non-startle.
resultsAn ensemble of several machine learning models resulted in an extremely robust model to predict whether an ASR waveform is a startle or non-startle with a mean ROC of 0.9779, training accuracy of 0.9993, and testing accuracy of 0.9301. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING
methodsASR waveforms analyzed using the threshold and RMS techniques resulted in over 80% of accepted startles actually being non-startles when manually classified versus 2.2% for the machine learning method, resulting in statistically significant differences in ASR metrics (such as startle amplitude and pre-pulse inhibition) between classification methods.
conclusionsThe machine learning approach presented in this paper can be adapted to nearly any ASR paradigm to accurately process, sort, and classify startle responses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.