Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33600814›Full record

ReviewExperimental neurology2021

Automation of training and testing motor and related tasks in pre-clinical behavioural and rehabilitative neuroscience.

Kar Men Mah, Abel Torres-Espín, Ben W Hallworth, John L Bixby, Vance P Lemmon, Karim Fouad, Keith K Fenrich

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

7 authors.

Kar Men MahDepartment of Neurological Surgery, The Miami Project to Cure Paralysis, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33136, USA.
Abel Torres-EspínBrain and Spinal Injury Center, Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Ben W HallworthNeuroscience and Mental Health Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
John L BixbyDepartment of Neurological Surgery, The Miami Project to Cure Paralysis, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33136, USA; Department of Molecular & Cellular Pharmacology, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL 33136, USA.
Vance P LemmonDepartment of Neurological Surgery, The Miami Project to Cure Paralysis, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33136, USA.
Karim FouadNeuroscience and Mental Health Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Department of Physical Therapy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Keith K FenrichNeuroscience and Mental Health Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: fenrich@ualberta.ca.

Funding

Targeting Multiple Kinases to Treat Experimental Spinal Cord Injury.R01NS100531 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI BIXBY, JOHN L, LEMMON, VANCE P · 2017 to 2021
$2.4M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS100531
6 · The paper itself

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

Machine LearningAnimalsAutomationBehavior, AnimalHumansMotor SkillsNeurological RehabilitationNeuronal PlasticityPsychomotor PerformanceRecovery of FunctionAnimal modelsAutomationBehavioural testingLocomotionMachine learningMotor taskNervous system injuryNeural plasticityRehabilitation trainingRoboticsSkilled motor function

Identifiers

PMID33600814
PMCPMC10443427

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.