↓ Skip to main content

Automated Assessment of Endpoint and Kinematic Features of Skilled Reaching in Rats

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Automated Assessment of Endpoint and Kinematic Features of Skilled Reaching in Rats
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00255
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ioana Nica, Marjolijn Deprez, Bart Nuttin, Jean-Marie Aerts

Abstract

Background: Neural injury to the motor cortex may result in long-term impairments. As a model for human impairments, rodents are often used to study deficits related to reaching and grasping, using the single-pellet reach-to-grasp task. Current assessments of this test capture mostly endpoint outcome. While qualitative features have been proposed, they usually involve manual scoring. Objective: To detect three phases of movement during the single-pellet reach-to-grasp test and assess completion of each phase. To automatically monitor rat forelimb trajectory so as to extract kinematics and classify phase outcome. Methods: A top-view camera is used to monitor three rats during training, healthy and impaired testing, over 33 days. By monitoring the coordinates of the forelimb tip along with the position of the pellet, the algorithm divides a trial into reaching, grasping and retraction. Unfulfilling any of the phases results in one of three possible errors: miss, slip or drop. If all phases are complete, the outcome label is success. Along with endpoints, movement kinematics are assessed: variability, convex hull, mean and maximum reaching speed, length of trajectory and peak forelimb extension. Results: The set of behavior endpoints was extended to include miss, slip, drop and success rate. The labeling algorithm was tested on pre- and post-lesion datasets, with overall accuracy rates of 86% and 92%, respectively. These endpoint features capture a drop in skill after motor cortical lesion as the success rate of 59.6 ± 11.8% pre-lesion decreases to 13.9 ± 8.2% post-lesion, along with a significant increase in miss rate from 7.2 ± 6.7% pre-lesion to 50.2 ± 18.7% post-lesion. Kinematics reveals individual-specific strategies of improvement during training, with a common trend of trajectory variability decreasing with success. Correlations between kinematics and endpoints reveal a more complex pattern of relationships during rehabilitation (18 significant pairs of features) than during training (nine correlated pairs). Conclusion: Extended endpoint outcomes and kinematics of reaching and grasping are captured automatically with a robust computer program. Both endpoints and kinematics capture intra-animal drop in skill after a motor cortical lesion. Correlations between kinematics and endpoints change from training to rehabilitation, suggesting different mechanisms that underlie motor improvement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 27%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 16 31%
Engineering 5 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 18 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,743,837
of 23,613,071 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#1,952
of 3,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,321
of 445,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#37
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,613,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,273 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 445,257 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.