Skip to main content

Umbrella menu

  • SfN.org
  • eNeuro
  • The Journal of Neuroscience
  • Neuronline
  • BrainFacts.org

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Latest Articles
    • Issue Archive
    • Editorials
    • Research Highlights
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • BLOG
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SfN.org
  • eNeuro
  • The Journal of Neuroscience
  • Neuronline
  • BrainFacts.org

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro
  • My alerts

eNeuro

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Latest Articles
    • Issue Archive
    • Editorials
    • Research Highlights
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • BLOG
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
PreviousNext
Research ArticleResearch Article: Methods/New Tools, Novel Tools and Methods

An Analysis of Variability in “CatWalk” Locomotor Measurements to Aid Experimental Design and Interpretation

Miriam Aceves, Valerie A. Dietz, Jennifer N. Dulin, Unity Jeffery and Nicholas D. Jeffery
eNeuro 9 July 2020, 7 (4) ENEURO.0092-20.2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0092-20.2020
Miriam Aceves
1Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
3Texas A&M Institute for Neuroscience, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Valerie A. Dietz
2Department of Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jennifer N. Dulin
2Department of Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
3Texas A&M Institute for Neuroscience, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Unity Jeffery
4Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, College Station, TX 77843
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicholas D. Jeffery
1Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
3Texas A&M Institute for Neuroscience, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Scatter plot between run speed and right hind/right fore (RH/RF) coupling in normal rats on the CatWalk. There is no apparent correlation between these variables (r = −0.012; p = 0.885).

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    RH stride length at week 3 and week 6 after rats had received a unilateral C5 spinal cord impact injury (SciCrunch data).

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    CatWalk detection settings

    Camera detection settingsResultsAuto detection settings
    Camera gain (dB): 12.00
    Green intensity threshold: 0.14
    Red ceiling light (V): 17.70
    Green walkway light (V): 16.0
    Maximum green intensity: 0
    Minimum green intensity: 256
    Range: –256
    Maximum range from 197 to 203
    Frames before Delta: 5
    Intensity minimum: 85
    • View popup
    Table 2

    Limits used to define a compliant run

    Run criteria
    Minimum run duration: 0.5 s
    Maximum run duration: 5.00 s
    Minimum number of compliant runs to acquire: 3
    Use maximum allowed speed variation (left unchecked)
    • View popup
    Table 3

    RCVs

    TestMeanRCV (%)
    Overall measures of hindlimbfunction
     Run duration3.29 s69.3
     Average speed36.87 cm/s72.5
     Base of support2.71 cm34.4
     Coupling RHRF45.12%31.6
     Coupling LHLF45.40%30.8
    Hindlimb function, right
     Stride length17.68 cm29.1
     Print area1.82 cm265.0
     Swing duration0.16 s25.7
     Swing speed112.52 cm/s34.8
     Stance duration0.23* sUp: 121.5;down: 54.9
     Max contact area1.39 cm273.2
     Mean intensity103.61 AU19.6
     Duty cycle58.60%24.2
    Hindlimb function, left
     Stride length17.71 cm27.1
     Print area1.83 cm266.1
     Swing duration0.16 s27.2
     Swing speed112.45 cm/s31.0
     Stance duration0.23* sUp: 136.6;down: 57.7
     Max contact area1.41 cm271.5
     Mean intensity103.63 AU20.4
     Duty cycle58.33%24.9
    • RHRF, right hind/right fore; LHLF, left hind/left fore; AU, arbitrary units.

    • ↵* indicates median value, not mean.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Pearson correlation matrix for commonly measured variables, RH

    RundurationStridelengthBase ofsupportPrintareaSwingdurationSwingspeedMaxcontactStancetimeRunspeedMeanintensityDutycycle
    Run duration1
    Stride length–0.4541
    Base of support0.090–0.2681
    Print area0.219–0.1400.0981
    Swing duration0.2180.02070.046–0.0041
    Swing speed–0.4870.720–0.223–0.071–0.6601
    Max contact0.183–0.1070.0620.97–0.021–0.0391
    Stance time0.568–0.5580.2600.2020.202–0.5460.3541
    Run speed–0.7700.588–0.161–0.326–0.3260.660–0.305–0.7161
    Mean intensity0.0570.1230.1150.5090.0160.0900.5790.079–0.0601
    Duty cycle0.437–0.6730.2350.515–0.176–0.3610.4580.773–0.6170.1141
    • Bold indicates p < 0.05.

    • View popup
    Table 5

    Application of RCI analysis to previously published data on RH stride length following unilateral 12.5-mm NYU impactor injury at C5

    RatnumberWeek 3
    Stridelength (mm)
    Week 6
    Stridelength (mm)
    RCV (fromour study)Upper RCIboundary(= week 3 + RCV)Lower RCIboundary(= week 3 – RCV)Week 6 exceedsupper RCIboundary?Week 6 lessthan lower RCIboundary?
    1150.70158.3942.20192.90108.50NoNo
    2159.17184.7444.57203.74114.60NoNo
    3138.41176.6138.76177.1799.66NoNo
    4150.63161.6542.18192.81108.46NoNo
    5146.08148.8840.90186.98105.18NoNo
    6143.36143.8540.14183.50103.22NoNo
    7169.21169.2947.38216.58121.83NoNo
    8168.78188.3347.26216.04121.52NoNo
    9169.94154.8147.58217.52122.36NoNo
    10197.48169.2455.29252.77142.19NoNo
    11190.84193.3153.43244.27137.40NoNo
    12128.59145.8336.00164.5992.58NoNo
    13172.51180.0048.30220.81124.21NoNo
    14137.35179.3238.46175.8098.89YesNo
    15122.18175.3234.21156.3987.97YesNo
    16110.61198.1930.97141.5879.64YesNo
    17117.51192.5532.90150.4184.61YesNo
    18125.85135.3935.24161.0990.61NoNo
    19142.68150.3239.95182.63102.73NoNo
    20153.95147.8643.11197.06110.85NoNo
    21153.02170.6442.85195.87110.18NoNo
    22154.96166.5443.39198.34111.57NoNo
    23154.82189.2543.35198.18111.47NoNo
    24149.06176.9741.74190.79107.32NoNo
    25126.54140.6235.43161.9791.11NoNo
    26156.21183.7643.74199.95112.47NoNo
    27163.30170.9945.72209.02117.57NoNo
    28130.30172.6936.49166.7993.82YesNo
    29150.85132.1042.24193.09108.61NoNo
    30164.72153.0346.12210.85118.60NoNo
    31172.34167.8548.26220.60124.09NoNo
    32141.57158.1339.64181.21101.93NoNo
Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 7 (4)
eNeuro
Vol. 7, Issue 4
July/August 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
An Analysis of Variability in “CatWalk” Locomotor Measurements to Aid Experimental Design and Interpretation
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
An Analysis of Variability in “CatWalk” Locomotor Measurements to Aid Experimental Design and Interpretation
Miriam Aceves, Valerie A. Dietz, Jennifer N. Dulin, Unity Jeffery, Nicholas D. Jeffery
eNeuro 9 July 2020, 7 (4) ENEURO.0092-20.2020; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0092-20.2020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
An Analysis of Variability in “CatWalk” Locomotor Measurements to Aid Experimental Design and Interpretation
Miriam Aceves, Valerie A. Dietz, Jennifer N. Dulin, Unity Jeffery, Nicholas D. Jeffery
eNeuro 9 July 2020, 7 (4) ENEURO.0092-20.2020; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0092-20.2020
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • outcome measure
  • spinal cord injury
  • translation

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Research Article: Methods/New Tools

  • Citric Acid Water as an Alternative to Water Restriction for High-Yield Mouse Behavior
  • Using head-mounted ethanol sensors to monitor olfactory information and determine behavioral changes associated with ethanol-plume contact during mouse odor-guided navigation
  • Limited Sensitivity of Hippocampal Synaptic Function or Network Oscillations to Unmodulated Kilohertz Electric Fields
Show more Research Article: Methods/New Tools

Novel Tools and Methods

  • Citric Acid Water as an Alternative to Water Restriction for High-Yield Mouse Behavior
  • Using head-mounted ethanol sensors to monitor olfactory information and determine behavioral changes associated with ethanol-plume contact during mouse odor-guided navigation
  • Limited Sensitivity of Hippocampal Synaptic Function or Network Oscillations to Unmodulated Kilohertz Electric Fields
Show more Novel Tools and Methods

Subjects

  • Novel Tools and Methods
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2021 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.