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

Journal: Experimental neurology
Published Date:

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.

Authors

  • Kar Men Mah
    Department of Neurological Surgery, The Miami Project to Cure Paralysis, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33136, USA.
  • Abel Torres-EspĂ­n
    Brain and Spinal Injury Center, Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
  • Ben W Hallworth
    Neuroscience and Mental Health Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
  • John L Bixby
    Miami Project to Cure Paralysis, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, FL 33136 Center for Computational Science, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33146 Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, FL 33136, USA.
  • Vance P Lemmon
    Miami Project to Cure Paralysis, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, FL 33136 Center for Computational Science, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33146 vlemmon@miami.edu.
  • Karim Fouad
    Neuroscience 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 Fenrich
    Neuroscience 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.