Real-Time Closed-Loop Feedback System For Mouse Mesoscale Cortical Signal And Movement Control: CLoPy
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife Assessment
This study presents a platform to implement closed-loop experiments in mice based on auditory feedback. The authors provide solid evidence that their platform enables a variety of closed-loop experiments using neural or movement signals, indicating that it will be a valuable resource to the neuroscience community. However, the demonstration experiments could be strengthened by increasing the sample size for several groups in the neurofeedback experiments, as well as a more thorough description of the results in the text.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
Abstract
We present the implementation and efficacy of an open-source closed-loop neurofeedback (CLNF) and closed-loop movement feedback (CLMF) system. In CLNF, we measure mm-scale cortical mesoscale activity with GCaMP6s and provide graded auditory feedback (within ∼50 ms) based on changes in dorsal-cortical activation within regions of interest (ROI) and with a specified rule. Single or dual ROIs (ROI1, ROI2) on the dorsal cortical map were selected as targets. Both motor and sensory regions supported closed-loop training in male and female mice. Mice modulated activity in rule-specific target cortical ROIs to get increasing rewards over days (RM ANOVA p=2.83e-5) and adapted to changes in ROI rules (RM ANOVA p=8.3e-10, Table 4 for different rule changes). In CLMF, feedback was based on tracking a specified body movement, and rewards were generated when the behavior reached a threshold. For movement training, the group that received graded auditory feedback performed significantly better (RM-ANOVA p=9.6e-7) than a control group (RM-ANOVA p=0.49) within four training days. Additionally, mice can learn a change in task rule from left forelimb to right forelimb within a day, after a brief performance drop on day 5. Offline analysis of neural data and behavioral tracking revealed changes in the overall distribution of ΔF/F 0 values in CLNF and body-part speed values in CLMF experiments. Increased CLMF performance was accompanied by a decrease in task latency and cortical ΔF/F 0 amplitude during the task, indicating lower cortical activation as the task gets more familiar.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
eLife Assessment
This study presents a platform to implement closed-loop experiments in mice based on auditory feedback. The authors provide solid evidence that their platform enables a variety of closed-loop experiments using neural or movement signals, indicating that it will be a valuable resource to the neuroscience community. However, the demonstration experiments could be strengthened by increasing the sample size for several groups in the neurofeedback experiments, as well as a more thorough description of the results in the text.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
The authors provide a resource to the systems neuroscience community, by offering their Python-based CLoPy platform for closed-loop feedback training. In addition to using neural feedback, as is common in these experiments, they include a capability to use real-time movement extracted from DeepLabCut as the control signal. The methods and repository are detailed for those who wish to use this resource. Furthermore, they demonstrate the efficacy of their system through a series of mesoscale calcium imaging experiments. These experiments use a large number of cortical regions for the control signal in the neural feedback setup, while the movement feedback experiments are analyzed more extensively.
Strengths:
The primary strength of the paper is the availability of their CLoPy platform. Currently, most …
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
The authors provide a resource to the systems neuroscience community, by offering their Python-based CLoPy platform for closed-loop feedback training. In addition to using neural feedback, as is common in these experiments, they include a capability to use real-time movement extracted from DeepLabCut as the control signal. The methods and repository are detailed for those who wish to use this resource. Furthermore, they demonstrate the efficacy of their system through a series of mesoscale calcium imaging experiments. These experiments use a large number of cortical regions for the control signal in the neural feedback setup, while the movement feedback experiments are analyzed more extensively.
Strengths:
The primary strength of the paper is the availability of their CLoPy platform. Currently, most closed-loop operant conditioning experiments are custom built by each lab and carry a relatively large startup cost to get running. This platform lowers the barrier to entry for closed-loop operant conditioning experiments, in addition to making the experiments more accessible to those with less technical expertise.
Another strength of the paper is the use of many different cortical regions as control signals for the neurofeedback experiments. Rodent operant conditioning experiments typically record from the motor cortex and maybe one other region. Here, the authors demonstrate that mice can volitionally control many different cortical regions not limited to those previously studied, recording across many regions in the same experiment. This demonstrates the relative flexibility of modulating neural dynamics, including in non-motor regions.
Finally, adapting the closed-loop platform to use real-time movement as a control signal is a nice addition. Incorporating movement kinematics into operant conditioning experiments has been a challenge due to the increased technical difficulties of extracting real-time kinematic data from video data at a latency where it can be used as a control signal for operant conditioning. In this paper they demonstrate that the mice can learn the task using their forelimb position, at a rate that is quicker than the neurofeedback experiments.
Weaknesses:
There are several weaknesses in the paper that diminish the impact of its strengths. First, the value of the CLoPy platform is not clearly articulated to the systems neuroscience community. Similarly, the resource could be better positioned within the context of the broader open-source neuroscience community. For an example of how to better frame this resource in these contexts, I recommend consulting the pyControl paper. Improving this framing will likely increase the accessibility and interest of this paper to a less technical neuroscience audience, for instance by highlighting the types of experimental questions CLoPy can enable.
While the dataset contains an impressive amount of animals and cortical regions for the neurofeedback experiment, and an analysis of the movement-feedback experiments, my excitement for these experiments is tempered by the relative incompleteness of the dataset, as well as its description and analysis in the text. For instance, in the neurofeedback experiment, many of these regions only have data from a single mouse, limiting the conclusions that can be drawn. Additionally, there is a lack of reporting of the quantitative results in the text of the document, which is needed to better understand the degree of the results. Finally, the writing of the results section could use some work, as it currently reads more like a methods section.
Suggestions for improved or additional experiments, data or analyses:
Not necessary for this paper, but it would be interesting to see if the CLNF group could learn without auditory feedback.
There are no quantitative results in the results section. I would add important results to help the reader better interpret the data. For example, in: "Our results indicated that both training paradigms were able to lead mice to obtain a significantly larger number of rewards over time," You could show a number, with an appropriate comparison or statistical test, to demonstrate that learning was observed.
For: "Performing this analysis indicated that the Raspberry Pi system could provide reliable graded feedback within ~63 {plus minus} 15 ms for CLNF experiments." The LED test shows the sending of the signal, but the actual delay for the audio generation might be longer. This is also longer than the 50 ms mentioned in the abstract.
It could be helpful to visualize an individual trial for each experiment type, for instance how the audio frequency changes as movement speed / calcium activity changes.
The sample sizes are small (n=1) for a few groups. I am excited by the variety of regions recorded, so it could be beneficial for the authors to collect a few more animals to beef up the sample sizes.
I am curious as to why 60 trials sessions were used. Was it mostly for the convenience of a 30 min session, or were the animals getting satiated? If the former, would learning have occurred more rapidly with longer sessions?
Figure 4 E is interesting, it seems like the changes in the distribution of deltaF was in both positive and negative directions, instead of just positive. I'd be curious as to the author's thoughts as to why this is the case. Relatedly, I don't see Figure 4E, and a few other subplots, mentioned in the text. As a general comment, I would address each subplot in the text.
For: "In general, all ROIs assessed that encompassed sensory, pre-motor, and motor areas were capable of supporting increased reward rates over time," I would provide a visual summary showing the learning curves for the different types of regions.
Relatedly, I would further explain the fast vs slow learners, and if they mapped onto certain regions.
Also I would make the labels for these plots (e.g. Supp Fig3) more intuitive, versus the acronyms currently used.
The CLMF animals showed a decrease in latency across learning, what about the CLNF animals? There is currently no mention in the text or figures.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
In this work, Gupta & Murphy present several parallel efforts. On one side, they present the hardware and software they use to build a head-fixed mouse experimental setup that they use to track in "real-time" the calcium activity in one or two spots at the surface of the cortex. On the other side, the present another setup that they use to take advantage of the "real-time" version of DeepLabCut with their mice. The hardware and software that they used/develop is described at length, both in the article and in a companion GitHub repository. Next, they present experimental work that they have done with these two setups, training mice to max out a virtual cursor to obtain a reward, by taking advantage of auditory tone feedback that is provided to the mice as they modulate either (1) their local …
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
In this work, Gupta & Murphy present several parallel efforts. On one side, they present the hardware and software they use to build a head-fixed mouse experimental setup that they use to track in "real-time" the calcium activity in one or two spots at the surface of the cortex. On the other side, the present another setup that they use to take advantage of the "real-time" version of DeepLabCut with their mice. The hardware and software that they used/develop is described at length, both in the article and in a companion GitHub repository. Next, they present experimental work that they have done with these two setups, training mice to max out a virtual cursor to obtain a reward, by taking advantage of auditory tone feedback that is provided to the mice as they modulate either (1) their local cortical calcium activity, or (2) their limb position.
Strengths:
This work illustrates the fact that thanks to readily available experimental building blocks, body movement and calcium imaging can be carried using readily available components, including imaging the brain using an incredibly cheap consumer electronics RGB camera (RGB Raspberry Pi Camera). It is a useful source of information for researchers that may be interested in building a similar setup, given the highly detailed overview of the system. Finally, it further confirms previous findings regarding the operant conditioning of the calcium dynamics at the surface of the cortex (Clancy et al. 2020) and suggests an alternative based on deeplabcut to the motor tasks that aim to image the brain at the mesoscale during forelimb movements (Quarta et al. 2022).
Weaknesses:
This work covers 3 separate research endeavors: (1) The development of two separate setups, their corresponding software. (2) A study that is highly inspired from the Clancy et al. 2020 paper on the modulation of the local cortical activity measured through a mesoscale calcium imaging setup. (3) A study of the mesoscale dynamics of the cortex during forelimb movements learning. Sadly, the analyses of the physiological data appears uncomplete, and more generally the paper tends to offer overstatements regarding several points:
- In contrast to the introductory statements of the article, closed-loop physiology in rodents is a well-established research topic. Beyond auditory feedback, this includes optogenetic feedback (O'Connor et al. 2013, Abbasi et al. 2018, 2023), electrical feedback in hippocampus (Girardeau et al. 2009), and much more.
- The behavioral setups that are presented are representative of the state of the art in the field of mesoscale imaging/head fixed behavior community, rather than a highly innovative design. In particular, the closed-loop latency that they achieve (>60 ms) may be perceived by the mice. This is in contrast with other available closed-loop setups.
- Through the paper, there are several statements that point out how important it is to carry out this work in a closed-loop setting with an auditory feedback, but sadly there is no "no feedback" control in cortical conditioning experiments, while there is a no-feedback condition in the forelimb movement study, which shows that learning of the task can be achieved in the absence of feedback.
- The analysis of the closed-loop neuronal data behavior lacks controls. Increased performance can be achieved by modulating actively only one of the two ROIs, this is not clearly analyzed (for instance looking at the timing of the calcium signal modulation across the two ROIs. It seems that overall ROIs1 and 2 covariate, in contrast to Clancy et al. 2020. How can this be explained? -
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
The study demonstrates the effectiveness of a cost-effective closed-loop feedback system for modulating brain activity and behavior in head-fixed mice. Authors have tested real-time closed-loop feedback system in head-fixed mice two types of graded feedback: 1) Closed-loop neurofeedback (CLNF), where feedback is derived from neuronal activity (calcium imaging), and 2) Closed-loop movement feedback (CLMF), where feedback is based on observed body movement. It is a python based opensource system, and authors call it CLoPy. The authors also claim to provide all software, hardware schematics, and protocols to adapt it to various experimental scenarios. This system is capable and can be adapted for a wide use case scenario.
Authors have shown that their system can control both positive (water drop) and …
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
The study demonstrates the effectiveness of a cost-effective closed-loop feedback system for modulating brain activity and behavior in head-fixed mice. Authors have tested real-time closed-loop feedback system in head-fixed mice two types of graded feedback: 1) Closed-loop neurofeedback (CLNF), where feedback is derived from neuronal activity (calcium imaging), and 2) Closed-loop movement feedback (CLMF), where feedback is based on observed body movement. It is a python based opensource system, and authors call it CLoPy. The authors also claim to provide all software, hardware schematics, and protocols to adapt it to various experimental scenarios. This system is capable and can be adapted for a wide use case scenario.
Authors have shown that their system can control both positive (water drop) and negative reinforcement (buzzer-vibrator). This study also shows that using the close loop system mice have shown better performance, learnt arbitrary task and can adapt to change in the rule as well. By integrating real-time feedback based on cortical GCaMP imaging and behavior tracking authors have provided strong evidence that such closed-loop systems can be instrumental in exploring the dynamic interplay between brain activity and behavior.
Strengths:
Simplicity of feedback systems designed. Simplicity of implementation and potential adoption.
Weaknesses:
Long latencies, due to slow Ca2+ dynamics and slow imaging (15 FPS), may limit the application of the system.
Major comments:
(1) Page 5 paragraph 1: "We tested our CLNF system on Raspberry Pi for its compactness, general-purpose input/output (GPIO) programmability, and wide community support, while the CLMF system was tested on an Nvidia Jetson GPU device." Can these programs and hardware be integrated with windows-based system and a microcontroller (Arduino/ Tency). As for the broad adaptability that's what a lot of labs would already have (please comment/discuss)?
(2) Hardware Constraints: The reliance on Raspberry Pi and Nvidia Jetson (is expensive) for real-time processing could introduce latency issues (~63 ms for CLNF and ~67 ms for CLMF). This latency might limit precision for faster or more complex behaviors, which authors should discuss in the discussion section.
(3) Neurofeedback Specificity: The task focuses on mesoscale imaging and ignores finer spatiotemporal details. Sub-second events might be significant in more nuanced behaviors. Can this be discussed in the discussion section?
(4) The activity over 6s is being averaged to determine if the threshold is being crossed before the reward is delivered. This is a rather long duration of time during which the mice may be exhibiting stereotyped behaviors that may result in the changes in DFF that are being observed. It would be interesting for the authors to compare (if data is available) the behavior of the mice in trials where they successfully crossed the threshold for reward delivery and in those trials where the threshold was not breached. How is this different from spontaneous behavior and behaviors exhibited when they are performing the test with CLNF?
-
