Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35487088›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in neurobiology2022

Toward the explainability, transparency, and universality of machine learning for behavioral classification in neuroscience.

Nastacia L Goodwin, Simon R O Nilsson, Jia Jie Choong, Sam A Golden

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in neurobiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Autobehaver: An AI-Based Pipeline for Animal Behavior Analysis.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Nastacia L GoodwinUniversity of Washington, Department of Biological Structure, Seattle, WA, USA; University of Washington, Graduate Program in Neuroscience, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/NastaciaGoodwin.
Simon R O NilssonUniversity of Washington, Department of Biological Structure, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/nilssonsro.
Jia Jie ChoongUniversity of Washington, Department of Biological Structure, Seattle, WA, USA; University of Washington, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/inoejj.
Sam A GoldenUniversity of Washington, Department of Biological Structure, Seattle, WA, USA; University of Washington, Graduate Program in Neuroscience, Seattle, WA, USA; University of Washington, Center of Excellence in Neurobiology of Addiction, Pain, and Emotion (NAPE), Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: sagolden@uw.edu.

Funding

University of Washington Center of Excellence in Opioid Addiction ResearchP30DA048736 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Michael R. Bruchas · 2019 to 2026
$13.0M
Reimbursement request for attending the Meeting of the Jointly Sponsored Institutional Predoctoral Training in the Neurosciences T32 Program Directors in Baltimore, MD on 2/19/19T32NS099578 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI SULLIVAN, JANE M, WONG, RACHEL O · 2016 to 2020
$1.4M
Connectomics of relapse to aggression seekingR00DA045662 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI GOLDEN, SAM · 2019 to 2021
$736k
Dissociable neural mechanisms of reactive versus appetitive aggressionF31MH125587 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI GOODWIN, NASTACIA · 2021 to 2023
$134k
NIDA NIH HHS P30 DA048736NIDA NIH HHS R00 DA045662NIMH NIH HHS F31 MH125587NINDS NIH HHS T32 NS099578
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of rigorous ethological observation via machine learning techniques to understand brain function (computational neuroethology) is a rapidly growing approach that is poised to significantly change how behavioral neuroscience is commonly performed. With the development of open-source platforms for automated tracking and behavioral recognition, these approaches are now accessible to a wide array of neuroscientists despite variations in budget and computational experience. Importantly, this adoption has moved the field toward a common understanding of behavior and brain function through the removal of manual bias and the identification of previously unknown behavioral repertoires. Although less apparent, another consequence of this movement is the introduction of analytical tools that increase the explainabilty, transparency, and universality of the machine-based behavioral classifications both within and between research groups. Here, we focus on three main applications of such machine model explainabilty tools and metrics in the drive toward behavioral (i) standardization, (ii) specialization, and (iii) explainability. We provide a perspective on the use of explainability tools in computational neuroethology, and detail why this is a necessary next step in the expansion of the field. Specifically, as a possible solution in behavioral neuroscience, we propose the use of Shapley values via Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) as a diagnostic resource toward explainability of human annotation, as well as supervised and unsupervised behavioral machine learning analysis.

Indexed as

EthologyMachine LearningHumans

Identifiers

PMID35487088
PMCPMC9464364

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.