Wireless AI-Powered IoT Sensors for Laboratory Mice Behavior Recognition

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2018, there are more than 100 million animals used in research, education, and testing per year. Of the laboratory animals used for research, 95 percent are mice and rats as reported by the Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR). We present here our work in developing wireless Artificial Intelligent (AI)-powered IoT Sensors (AIIS) for laboratory mice motion recognition utilizing embedded micro-inertial measurement units (uIMUs). Based on the AIIS, we have demonstrated a small-animal motion tracking and recognition system that could recognize 5 common behaviors of mice in cages with accuracy of ~76.23%. The key advantage of this AIIS-based system is to enable high throughput behavioral monitoring of multiple to a large group of laboratory animals, in contrast to traditional video tracking systems that usually track only single or a few animals at a time. The system collects motion data (i.e., three axes linear accelerations and three axes angular velocities) from the IoT sensors attached to different mice, and classifies these data into different behaviors using machine learning algorithms. One of the challenging problems for data analysis is that the distribution of behavior samples is extremely imbalanced. Behaviors such as sleeping and walking dominate the entire sample set from different mice. However, machine learning algorithms often require a balanced sample set to achieve optimal performance. Thus, several methods are proposed to solve the imbalanced sample problem. Data processing methods for data segmentation, feature extraction, feature selection, imbalanced learning, and machine learning are explored to process motion data including sleeping, walking, rearing, digging, shaking, grooming, drinking and scratching. For example, by tuning the parameters of a machine-learning algorithm (i.e., Support Vector Machine (SVM)), the average accuracy of classifying five behaviors (i.e., sleeping, walking, rearing, digging and shaking) is 48.07% before solving the imbalance sample issue. To address this problem, an iteration of sample and feature selection is applied to improve the SVM performance. A combination of oversampling and undersampling is used to handle imbalanced classes, and feature selection provides the optimal number of features. The accuracy increases from 48.07% to 76.23% when the optimized combination is used. We further obtained an average accuracy of 86.46% by removing shaking, which is proved to have a negative effect on the overall performance, out of these five behaviors. Furthermore, we were able to classify less frequent behaviors including rearing, digging, grooming, drinking and scratching at an average accuracy of 96.35%.

[1]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Simultaneous feature selection and clustering using mixture models , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[2]  Daniel P. Siewiorek,et al.  Activity recognition and monitoring using multiple sensors on different body positions , 2006, International Workshop on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks (BSN'06).

[3]  D.J. Young,et al.  Wireless Batteryless Implantable Blood Pressure Monitoring Microsystem for Small Laboratory Animals , 2010, IEEE Sensors Journal.

[4]  Zhi-Hua Zhou,et al.  Ieee Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 1 Training Cost-sensitive Neural Networks with Methods Addressing the Class Imbalance Problem , 2022 .

[5]  Luis Jiménez,et al.  Intelligent Surveillance Based on Normality Analysis to Detect Abnormal Behaviors , 2009, Int. J. Pattern Recognit. Artif. Intell..

[6]  Foster Provost,et al.  Machine Learning from Imbalanced Data Sets 101 , 2008 .

[7]  D. Monson,et al.  Monitoring heart rate and body temperature in red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) , 1989 .

[8]  F. Sams-Dodd,et al.  Automation of the social interaction test by a video-tracking system: behavioural effects of repeated phencyclidine treatment , 1995, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[9]  Lin Sun,et al.  Activity Recognition on an Accelerometer Embedded Mobile Phone with Varying Positions and Orientations , 2010, UIC.

[10]  Michael L. Littman,et al.  Activity Recognition from Accelerometer Data , 2005, AAAI.

[11]  Thomas Niesler,et al.  Animal-borne behaviour classification for sheep (Dohne Merino) and Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum and Diceros bicornis) , 2017, Animal Biotelemetry.

[12]  Özlem Durmaz Incel,et al.  User, device and orientation independent human activity recognition on mobile phones: challenges and a proposal , 2013, UbiComp.

[13]  Ferat Sahin,et al.  A survey on feature selection methods , 2014, Comput. Electr. Eng..

[14]  D M Weary,et al.  Board-invited review: Using behavior to predict and identify ill health in animals. , 2009, Journal of animal science.

[15]  Wilhelm Stork,et al.  Context-aware mobile health monitoring: Evaluation of different pattern recognition methods for classification of physical activity , 2008, 2008 30th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[16]  David Eilam,et al.  Stopping behavior: constraints on exploration in rats (Rattus norvegicus) , 1993, Behavioural Brain Research.

[17]  Douglas Wahlsten,et al.  The precision of video and photocell tracking systems and the elimination of tracking errors with infrared backlighting , 2010, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[18]  Anthony Widjaja,et al.  Learning with Kernels: Support Vector Machines, Regularization, Optimization, and Beyond , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks.

[19]  L P Noldus,et al.  EthoVision: A versatile video tracking system for automation of behavioral experiments , 2001, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[20]  M. Sharpley,et al.  Heteroplasmy of Mouse mtDNA Is Genetically Unstable and Results in Altered Behavior and Cognition , 2012, Cell.

[21]  Ravi S. Menon,et al.  EEG Monitoring during Functional MRI in Animal Models , 2007, Epilepsia.

[22]  Robert C. Holte,et al.  C4.5, Class Imbalance, and Cost Sensitivity: Why Under-Sampling beats Over-Sampling , 2003 .

[23]  Nitesh V. Chawla,et al.  SMOTEBoost: Improving Prediction of the Minority Class in Boosting , 2003, PKDD.

[24]  Seetha Hari,et al.  Learning From Imbalanced Data , 2019, Advances in Computer and Electrical Engineering.

[25]  S. Perrin Preclinical research: Make mouse studies work , 2014, Nature.

[26]  Kenichi Soga,et al.  Development of Wireless Sensor Network using Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) for Construction Noise Monitoring , 2015 .

[27]  Shawn Hochman,et al.  Use of electric field sensors for recording respiration, heart rate, and stereotyped motor behaviors in the rodent home cage , 2017, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[28]  Chia-Ping Chen,et al.  Recurrent neural network-based language models with variation in net topology, language, and granularity , 2016, 2016 International Conference on Asian Language Processing (IALP).

[29]  Edward Y. Chang,et al.  KBA: kernel boundary alignment considering imbalanced data distribution , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[30]  Christian Osendorfer,et al.  Sequential Feature Selection for Classification , 2011, Australasian Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[31]  Laure Bally-Cuif,et al.  Adult zebrafish as a model organism for behavioural genetics , 2010, BMC Neuroscience.

[32]  R. Raedt,et al.  Seizures in the intrahippocampal kainic acid epilepsy model: characterization using long‐term video‐EEG monitoring in the rat , 2009, Acta neurologica Scandinavica.

[33]  Richard Weber,et al.  A wrapper method for feature selection using Support Vector Machines , 2009, Inf. Sci..

[34]  Matthew C. Walker,et al.  A novel telemetry system for recording EEG in small animals , 2011, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[35]  Haibo He,et al.  ADASYN: Adaptive synthetic sampling approach for imbalanced learning , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence).

[36]  C. Lee Giles,et al.  Active learning for class imbalance problem , 2007, SIGIR.

[37]  Nitesh V. Chawla,et al.  SMOTE: Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique , 2002, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[38]  Chris. Drummond,et al.  C 4 . 5 , Class Imbalance , and Cost Sensitivity : Why Under-Sampling beats OverSampling , 2003 .

[39]  C. Randell,et al.  Context awareness by analysing accelerometer data , 2000, Digest of Papers. Fourth International Symposium on Wearable Computers.

[40]  Davide Anguita,et al.  A Public Domain Dataset for Human Activity Recognition using Smartphones , 2013, ESANN.

[41]  Kent Larson,et al.  Real-Time Recognition of Physical Activities and Their Intensities Using Wireless Accelerometers and a Heart Rate Monitor , 2007, 2007 11th IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers.

[42]  C. Braak,et al.  An automated system for the recognition of various specific rat behaviours , 2013, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.