Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32668315›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2020

Automated classification of acoustic startle reflex waveforms in young CBA/CaJ mice using machine learning.

Timothy J Fawcett, Chad S Cooper, Ryan J Longenecker, Joseph P Walton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Timothy J FawcettGlobal Center for Hearing and Speech Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA; Research Computing, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA; Department of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Chad S CooperGlobal Center for Hearing and Speech Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Ryan J LongeneckerGlobal Center for Hearing and Speech Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Joseph P WaltonGlobal Center for Hearing and Speech Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA; Department of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA; Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. Electronic address: jwalton1@usf.edu.

Funding

Structure and Function Services CoreP01AG009524 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA · PI FRISINA, ROBERT D · 1992 to 2021
$23.2M
Genetics Of StrokeZ01AG000954 · NIA · NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING · PI SINGLETON, ANDREW · 2002 to 2008
$831k
Intramural NIH HHS Z01 AG000954NIA NIH HHS P01 AG009524
6 · The paper itself

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

Prepulse InhibitionReflex, StartleAcoustic StimulationAnimalsMachine LearningMiceMice, Inbred CBAAcoustic startle responseEnsemble modelsMachine learningPre-pulse inhibitionRandom forest

Identifiers

PMID32668315
PMCPMC9629362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.