Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38899521›Full record

ArticleeLife2024

Stochastic characterization of navigation strategies in an automated variant of the Barnes maze.

Ju-Young Lee, Dahee Jung, Sebastien Royer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Ju-Young LeeCenter for Functional Connectomics, Brain Science Institute, Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST), Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Dahee JungCenter for Functional Connectomics, Brain Science Institute, Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST), Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Sebastien RoyerCenter for Functional Connectomics, Brain Science Institute, Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST), Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3038-1129

Funding

Korea Institute of Science and Technology 2E32211National Research Foundation of Korea 2021R1A2C3005560
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animals can use a repertoire of strategies to navigate in an environment, and it remains an intriguing question how these strategies are selected based on the nature and familiarity of environments. To investigate this question, we developed a fully automated variant of the Barnes maze, characterized by 24 vestibules distributed along the periphery of a circular arena, and monitored the trajectories of mice over 15 days as they learned to navigate towards a goal vestibule from a random start vestibule. We show that the patterns of vestibule visits can be reproduced by the combination of three stochastic processes reminiscent of random, serial, and spatial strategies. The processes randomly selected vestibules based on either uniform (random) or biased (serial and spatial) probability distributions. They closely matched experimental data across a range of statistical distributions characterizing the length, distribution, step size, direction, and stereotypy of vestibule sequences, revealing a shift from random to spatial and serial strategies over time, with a strategy switch occurring approximately every six vestibule visits. Our study provides a novel apparatus and analysis toolset for tracking the repertoire of navigation strategies and demonstrates that a set of stochastic processes can largely account for exploration patterns in the Barnes maze.

Indexed as

Maze LearningStochastic ProcessesAnimalsMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLSpatial Navigationautomated maze apparatusgenetic algorithmmarkov chain modelmixture modelmousenavigation strategyneurosciencestochastic processes

Identifiers

PMID38899521
PMCPMC11189626

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.