ReviewExperimental neurology2021
Automation of training and testing motor and related tasks in pre-clinical behavioural and rehabilitative neuroscience.
Review in Experimental neurology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of a Machine Learning-Derived Kinematic Deviation Index for the Evaluation of Forelimb in Rodents.AI in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Manual assessment of cylinder rearing behavior is more sensitive than automated gait evaluations in young, male mice post-stroke of the forepaw somatosensory cortex.Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association · 2025Article
- Using DeepLabCut as a Real-Time and Markerless Tool for Cardiac Physiology Assessment in Zebrafish.Biology · 2022Article
- Closed-loop automated reaching apparatus (CLARA) for interrogating complex motor behaviors.Journal of neural engineering · 2021Article
- When Spinal Neuromodulation Meets Sensorimotor Rehabilitation: Lessons Learned From Animal Models to Regain Manual Dexterity After a Spinal Cord Injury.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Testing and training animals in motor and related tasks is a cornerstone of pre-clinical behavioural and rehabilitative neuroscience. Yet manually testing and training animals in these tasks is time consuming and analyses are often subjective. Consequently, there have been many recent advances in automating both the administration and analyses of animal behavioural training and testing. This review is an in-depth appraisal of the history of, and recent developments in, the automation of animal behavioural assays used in neuroscience. We describe the use of common locomotor and non-locomotor tasks used for motor training and testing before and after nervous system injury. This includes a discussion of how these tasks help us to understand the underlying mechanisms of neurological repair and the utility of some tasks for the delivery of rehabilitative training to enhance recovery. We propose two general approaches to automation: automating the physical administration of behavioural tasks (i.e., devices used to facilitate task training, rehabilitative training, and motor testing) and leveraging the use of machine learning in behaviour analysis to generate large volumes of unbiased and comprehensive data. The advantages and disadvantages of automating various motor tasks as well as the limitations of machine learning analyses are examined. In closing, we provide a critical appraisal of the current state of automation in animal behavioural neuroscience and a prospective on some of the advances in machine learning we believe will dramatically enhance the usefulness of these approaches for behavioural neuroscientists.
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.