Cerebellar control of gait and interlimb coordination methods
Show snapshot details
On this page
This experiment, in seven questions
Jump straight to the part of the recipe you need. Data and provenance labels stay close to the action they support.
Shopping and prep list
What do I need before I start?
Biological model pending
Subject model for the experiment.
- Use
- confirm full cohort details in the source paper
Before you run
What should be confirmed before execution?
First confirmation
Species or subject information is missing.
Confirm before execution
Protocol does not list structured equipment.
Confirm before execution
This page shows passages quoted from the paper. Equipment, materials, times, and temperatures are hidden until the page is rebuilt from the full paper and checked by a reviewer. Check the paper before using this method.
Confirm before execution
Open the source paper before finalizing run-specific details.
Procurement checkpoint
Use source-stated vendors where present. Treat mapped products as sourcing options unless the page marks an exact source match.
Open quote workflowStep-by-step procedure
What do I do, in order?
Walking pattern consistency and efficiency
To analyze the consistency of their walking patterns, we investigated how frequently the mice changed their step length. We identified blocks of consecutive steps with the same length and then calculated the average number of such blocks per trial as well as the maximum number of steps per block (Fig. ). During the first session, control mice changed their step lengths multiple times (approximately 6 times). Only Pcd mice changed their step lengths significantly more often than their littermates (Pcd F (1,10) = 35.27, p < 0.001; L7-Ppp2b F (1,22) = 0.14, p = 0.714; L7-∆γ2 F (1,18) = 0.00, p = 0.966; α6-Cacna1a F (1,14) = 0.04, p = 0.841) (Fig. a). As training progressed, all groups made fewer changes in their step lengths. The only exception was Pcd mice, which kept walk...
Walking pattern consistency and efficiency
Elaborating on the finding that cerebellar mutants made more steps per trial than controls, we calculated the number of regular steps per block (see " "). Unlike the block sizes for small regular steps (step length = 2), for which we found no statistically significant difference between mutants and controls (Pcd F (1,10) = 0.812, p = 0.389; L7-Pp2b F (1,22) = 3.10, p = 0.092; L7-∆γ2 F (1,18) = 2.66, p = 0.120; α6-Cacna1a F (1,14) = 4.36, p = 0.056), those for large regular steps (step length = 4) were significantly smaller in Pcd and L7-Pp2b mice (Pcd F (1,10) = 16.51, p = 0.002; L7-Pp2b F (1,22) = 7.70, p = 0.011; L7-∆γ2 F (1,18) = 2.70, p = 0.118; α6-Cacna1a F (1,14) &...
Cognition
When we test mice for locomotion impairments on the Erasmus Ladder, we can also assess various cognitive parameters, such as those related to motivation and avoidance. Motivation can be tested by calculating the number of times mice react to specific stimuli meant to serve as a signal for them to leave the box. Similarly, we can test avoidance behavior by determining to what extent motivation mice are de-motivated when confronted with an aversive situation, such as an emerging obstacle. To evaluate motivation we calculated the percentage of trials per session in which the mice reacted to cues for departure, being either a friendly LED light or a more forceful air flow (see " "). The mice progressively began to respond to light rather than to the air flow that was switched on when they would not leave the starting shelter box on time. The number of trials during which the m...
Measurement outputs
What raw and processed outputs should exist?
Analysis plan
How should the outputs become interpretable results?
Acquisition
Collect raw experimental outputs with enough metadata to preserve sample identity, condition, and timing.
inferred from protocolPreprocessing / cleaning
Review raw outputs for quality, remove unusable captures, and organize the data into a comparison-ready table or image set.
inferred from protocolScoring or quantification
Quantify the primary endpoint described in the methods before moving into any statistical comparison.
inferred from protocolStatistical comparison
Statistical method not yet structured for this page.
inferred from protocolReporting output
Report representative outputs alongside the summary comparison used to support the conclusion.
inferred from protocolSource and audit
What supports the facts on this page?
Evidence quotes (3)
To analyze the consistency of their walking patterns, we investigated how frequently the mice changed their step length. We identified blocks of consecutive steps with the same length and then calculated the average number of such blocks per trial as well as the maximum number of steps per block (Fig. ). During the first session, control mice changed their step lengths multiple times (approximately 6 times). Only Pcd mice changed their step lengths significantly more often than their littermates (Pcd F (1,10) = 35.27, p < 0.001; L7-Ppp2b F (1,22) = 0.14, p = 0.714; L7-∆γ2 F (1,18) = 0.00, p = 0.966; α6-Cacna1a F (1,14) = 0.04, p = 0.841) (Fig. a). As training progressed, all groups made fewer changes in their step lengths. The only exception was Pcd mice, which kept walking irregularly (for p values, see Table ).
Elaborating on the finding that cerebellar mutants made more steps per trial than controls, we calculated the number of regular steps per block (see " "). Unlike the block sizes for small regular steps (step length = 2), for which we found no statistically significant difference between mutants and controls (Pcd F (1,10) = 0.812, p = 0.389; L7-Pp2b F (1,22) = 3.10, p = 0.092; L7-∆γ2 F (1,18) = 2.66, p = 0.120; α6-Cacna1a F (1,14) = 4.36, p = 0.056), those for large regular steps (step length = 4) were significantly smaller in Pcd and L7-Pp2b mice (Pcd F (1,10) = 16.51, p = 0.002; L7-Pp2b F (1,22) = 7.70, p = 0.011; L7-∆γ2 F (1,18) = 2.70, p = 0.118; α6-Cacna1a F (1,14) = 3.45, p = 0.086) (Table; Fig. b). Since most controls progressively increased the rate of large steps over the course of session one to four (Fig. b), it is likely that by increasing the length of their steps, they improved their efficiency when walking on t...
When we test mice for locomotion impairments on the Erasmus Ladder, we can also assess various cognitive parameters, such as those related to motivation and avoidance. Motivation can be tested by calculating the number of times mice react to specific stimuli meant to serve as a signal for them to leave the box. Similarly, we can test avoidance behavior by determining to what extent motivation mice are de-motivated when confronted with an aversive situation, such as an emerging obstacle. To evaluate motivation we calculated the percentage of trials per session in which the mice reacted to cues for departure, being either a friendly LED light or a more forceful air flow (see " "). The mice progressively began to respond to light rather than to the air flow that was switched on when they would not leave the starting shelter box on time. The number of trials during which the mice left the shelter box upon the light stimulus was interpreted as a measure of their motivation. During the perturbed sessions, the mice became more reluctant to start a trial, which was taken as a sign of avoidance behavior.
Machine-readable layer
[
{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "HowTo",
"name": "Cerebellar control of gait and interlimb coordination methods",
"description": "Protocol for Cerebellar control of gait and interlimb coordination methods",
"step": [
{
"@type": "HowToStep",
"position": 1,
"name": "Walking pattern consistency and efficiency",
"text": "To analyze the consistency of their walking patterns, we investigated how frequently the mice changed their step length. We identified blocks of consecutive steps with the same length and then calculated the average number of such blocks per trial as well as the maximum number of steps per block (Fig. ). During the first session, control mice changed their step lengths multiple times (approximately 6 times). Only Pcd mice changed their step lengths significantly more often than their littermates (Pcd F (1,10) = 35.27, p < 0.001; L7-Ppp2b F (1,22) = 0.14, p = 0.714; L7-∆γ2 F (1,18) = 0.00, p = 0.966; α6-Cacna1a F (1,14) = 0.04, p = 0.841) (Fig. a). As training progressed, all groups made fewer changes in their step lengths. The only exception was Pcd mice, which kept walk..."
},
{
"@type": "HowToStep",
"position": 2,
"name": "Walking pattern consistency and efficiency",
"text": "Elaborating on the finding that cerebellar mutants made more steps per trial than controls, we calculated the number of regular steps per block (see \" \"). Unlike the block sizes for small regular steps (step length = 2), for which we found no statistically significant difference between mutants and controls (Pcd F (1,10) = 0.812, p = 0.389; L7-Pp2b F (1,22) = 3.10, p = 0.092; L7-∆γ2 F (1,18) = 2.66, p = 0.120; α6-Cacna1a F (1,14) = 4.36, p = 0.056), those for large regular steps (step length = 4) were significantly smaller in Pcd and L7-Pp2b mice (Pcd F (1,10) = 16.51, p = 0.002; L7-Pp2b F (1,22) = 7.70, p = 0.011; L7-∆γ2 F (1,18) = 2.70, p = 0.118; α6-Cacna1a F (1,14) &..."
},
{
"@type": "HowToStep",
"position": 3,
"name": "Cognition",
"text": "When we test mice for locomotion impairments on the Erasmus Ladder, we can also assess various cognitive parameters, such as those related to motivation and avoidance. Motivation can be tested by calculating the number of times mice react to specific stimuli meant to serve as a signal for them to leave the box. Similarly, we can test avoidance behavior by determining to what extent motivation mice are de-motivated when confronted with an aversive situation, such as an emerging obstacle. To evaluate motivation we calculated the percentage of trials per session in which the mice reacted to cues for departure, being either a friendly LED light or a more forceful air flow (see \" \"). The mice progressively began to respond to light rather than to the air flow that was switched on when they would not leave the starting shelter box on time. The number of trials during which the m..."
}
],
"tool": [],
"supply": [],
"isBasedOn": {
"@type": "ScholarlyArticle",
"headline": "Cerebellar control of gait and interlimb coordination",
"datePublished": "2014",
"author": [
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "María Fernanda Vinueza Veloz"
},
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Kuikui Zhou"
},
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Laurens W. J. Bosman"
},
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Jan-Willem Potters"
},
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Mario Negrello"
},
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Robert M. Seepers"
},
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Christos Strydis"
},
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Sebastiaan K. E. Koekkoek"
},
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Chris I. De Zeeuw"
}
],
"identifier": "10.1007/s00429-014-0870-1"
}
},
{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "BreadcrumbList",
"itemListElement": [
{
"@type": "ListItem",
"position": 1,
"name": "Experiments",
"item": "https://replicatescience.com/experiments"
},
{
"@type": "ListItem",
"position": 2,
"name": "Cerebellar control of gait and interlimb coordination methods",
"item": "https://replicatescience.com/experiments/cerebellar-control-of-gait-and-interlimb-coordination-methods-mar-237-a-fernanda-vinueza-veloz-pmc4575700/cerebellar-control-of-gait-and-interlimb-coordination-mlph8rwz"
}
]
}
]