Cited by 760Human Pose and Action RecognitionMemory and Neural MechanismsMotor Control and Adaptation

Mapping Sub-Second Structure in Mouse Behavior

Open access
Wiltschko, Alexander B., Johnson, Matthew J., Iurilli, Giuliano, Peterson, Ralph E., Katon, Jesse M., Pashkovski, Stan L., Abraira, Victoria E., Adams, Ryan P. +1 more·2015·Neuron

Abstract

Complex animal behaviors are likely built from simpler modules, but their systematic identification in mammals remains a significant challenge. Here we use depth imaging to show that 3D mouse pose dynamics are structured at the sub-second timescale. Computational modeling of these fast dynamics effectively describes mouse behavior as a series of reused and stereotyped modules with defined transition probabilities. We demonstrate this combined 3D imaging and machine learning method can be used to unmask potential strategies employed by the brain to adapt to the environment, to capture both predicted and previously hidden phenotypes caused by genetic or neural manipulations, and to systematically expose the global structure of behavior within an experiment. This work reveals that mouse body language is built from identifiable components and is organized in a predictable fashion; deciphering this language establishes an objective framework for characterizing the influence of environmental cues, genes and neural activity on behavior.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.11.031

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • MoSeq and keypoint-MoSeq use AR-HMM, whereas VAME uses deep recurrent neural networks and variational autoencoders, providing two well-established complementary approaches.

    “MoSeq6 and keypoint-MoSeq35 use a statistical framework known as autoregressive hidden Markov model (AR-HMM),6,50,51 whereas VAME1,7 uses deep recurrent neural networks and variational autoencoders, providing two well-established complementary approaches.7,52,53”
  • Recent developments in behavioral analysis permit sophisticated examination of behavioral phenotypes based on unsupervised machine learning.

    “Finally, recent developments in behavioral analysis [25][26][27] permit sophisticated examination of behavioral phenotypes based on unsupervised machine learning.”
  • MoSeq is a machine learning-based approach but not per se designed to replace experimenter scoring of behavior, since it automatically segments behavior into dynamical regimes (syllables) which may not fit intuitive description by humans.

    “MoSeq is also a machine learning-based approach, but not per se designed to replace experimenter scoring of behavior, since it automatically segments behavior into dynamical regimes, i.e., syllables, which may not fit intuitive description by humans [25].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wiltschko, A. B., Johnson, M. J., Iurilli, G., Peterson, R. E., Katon, J. M., Pashkovski, S. L., Abraira, V. E., Adams, R. P., & Datta, S. R.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Datta, Sandeep Robert
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-12
Volume
88
Issue
6
Pages
1121-1135
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2219858099
Cited by
760
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 76 · 2025: 80 · 2024: 112 · 2023: 98 · 2022: 81 · 2021: 91 · 2020: 71 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 11
FWCI
26.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1dp2od007109-01)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC011558, R011DC011558)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (U01NS094191)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U54HD090255, P30HD018655, P30HD-18655)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Human Pose and Action Recognition
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
mouse behavior, transition probabilities, computational modeling of behavior, depth imaging, behavioral phenotyping, genetic engineering, neural manipulation, environmental cues
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Animals, Behavior, Animal, Computer Simulation, Kinesics, Male, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Mice, Transgenic, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Mice, Optogenetics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review