ArticlePLoS computational biology2022
Correcting motion induced fluorescence artifacts in two-channel neural imaging.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiple Scales of Coordination along the Body Axis duringThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- An epifluorescence microscope design for naturalistic behavior and cellular activity in freely moving Caenorhabditis elegans.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Social attachment shapes interbrain synchrony.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Acetylcholine demixes heterogeneous dopamine signals for learning and moving.Nature neuroscience · 2026Article
- Estrogen modulates reward prediction errors and reinforcement learning.Nature neuroscience · 2025Article
- Context rescales a social action code in a hormone-sensitive network.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Symmetries and synchronization from whole-neural activity in theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Dopamine transients encode reward prediction errors independent of learning rates.Cell reports · 2024Article
- Dopamine transients encode reward prediction errors independent of learning rates.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- A hippocampus-accumbens code guides goal-directed appetitive behavior.Nature communications · 2024Article
- All-optical interrogation of brain-wide activity in freely swimming larval zebrafish.iScience · 2024Article
- How can I measure brain acetylcholine levels in vivo? Advantages and caveats of commonly used approaches.Journal of neurochemistry · 2023Review
- High dynamic range 3D motion tracking using circular scans with optical coherence tomography.Biomedical optics express · 2023Article
- Wide-field fluorescence lifetime imaging of neuron spiking and subthreshold activity in vivo.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2023Article
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
Imaging neural activity in a behaving animal presents unique challenges in part because motion from an animal's movement creates artifacts in fluorescence intensity time-series that are difficult to distinguish from neural signals of interest. One approach to mitigating these artifacts is to image two channels simultaneously: one that captures an activity-dependent fluorophore, such as GCaMP, and another that captures an activity-independent fluorophore such as RFP. Because the activity-independent channel contains the same motion artifacts as the activity-dependent channel, but no neural signals, the two together can be used to identify and remove the artifacts. However, existing approaches for this correction, such as taking the ratio of the two channels, do not account for channel-independent noise in the measured fluorescence. Here, we present Two-channel Motion Artifact Correction (TMAC), a method which seeks to remove artifacts by specifying a generative model of the two channel fluorescence that incorporates motion artifact, neural activity, and noise. We use Bayesian inference to infer latent neural activity under this model, thus reducing the motion artifact present in the measured fluorescence traces. We further present a novel method for evaluating ground-truth performance of motion correction algorithms by comparing the decodability of behavior from two types of neural recordings; a recording that had both an activity-dependent fluorophore and an activity-independent fluorophore (GCaMP and RFP) and a recording where both fluorophores were activity-independent (GFP and RFP). A successful motion correction method should decode behavior from the first type of recording, but not the second. We use this metric to systematically compare five models for removing motion artifacts from fluorescent time traces. We decode locomotion from a GCaMP expressing animal 20x more accurately on average than from control when using TMAC inferred activity and outperforms all other methods of motion correction tested, the best of which were ~8x more accurate than control.
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.