{ "dataset": { "archive": "dandi", "id": "000015", "label": "DANDI:000015" }, "page": "datasets/dandi/000015/", "generated": "2026-10-22T20:51:39+00:00", "caution": "A failure to reproduce is not a finding that the paper is wrong. It may be a failure of the attempt.", "outcome_counts": { "reproduced": 11, "partially_reproduced": 3, "not_reproduced": 7, "blocked": 8 }, "outcome_counts_with_outside_data": { "reproduced": 1, "partially_reproduced": 0, "not_reproduced": 0, "blocked": 0 }, "outcome_counts_elsewhere": { "reproduced": 0, "partially_reproduced": 0, "not_reproduced": 0, "blocked": 2 }, "outcome_counts_links": { "reproduced": 1, "partially_reproduced": 0, "not_reproduced": 0, "blocked": 0 }, "attempts": [ { "id": "000015-chen-2017-01", "dataset": { "archive": "dandi", "id": "000015", "version": "0.220126.1914", "doi": "10.48324/dandi.000015/0.220126.1914" }, "key": "dandi:000015", "label": "DANDI:000015", "dataset_version": "0.220126.1914", "paper": "10.1016/j.neuron.2017.05.005", "paper_title": "A Map of Anticipatory Activity in Mouse Motor Cortex", "date": "2026-10-21", "kind": "agent", "accountable": "CatalystNeuro", "agent": { "harness": "Claude Code (GitHub Actions)", "model": "claude-opus-5-5", "protocol": "pilot-10" }, "runner": { "platform": "GitHub Actions", "url": "https://github.com/catalystneuro/reproduction-registry/actions/runs/39637903703" }, "tier": "agent_verified", "deprecated": "", "deprecated_on": null, "entry": "000015-chen-2017", "entry_title": "Anticipatory activity in mouse motor cortex (Chen et al. 2017)", "description": "Tests the findings of Chen, Li, Daie and Svoboda (2017) on dandiset 000015, which holds two-photon imaging of 105 image planes in left ALM and MM of six mice during a tactile delayed response task, with PT and IT labels in three of them. It tests the trial and neuron counts, the selectivity of single neurons for object location, lick direction and outcome, its map over ALM and MM, and the coding of PT and IT neurons. The plane depth, wide-field imaging, whisker tracking, photoinhibition and silicon probe data are not in the dandiset.", "notebooks": [ { "path": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "title": "Reproducing Chen et al. (2017) from dandiset 000015", "executed": "notebooks/000015-chen-2017/reproduce_chen_2017.html" } ], "outcomes": [ { "claim": "early-lick-fraction", "statement": "Mice licked early, during the delay epoch, on 13.3% +- 10% of trials, and these trials were not analysed.", "source": "Results, paragraph 2 (four trial types)", "quote": "Trials in which the mice licked early during the delay epoch (13.3% \u00b1 10%) were not analyzed", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "Mean over the 105 planes of the percentage of trials with an early lick, 13.24 +- 9.14 with all trials as denominator (reading a). Every reading is within 13.3 +- 10, from 13.24 (planes) to 15.08 (mice, trials with a lick). Per mouse 8.8% to 21.9%.", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "imaging-sample", "statement": "Two-photon imaging covered 12 locations in 6 mice with 8.8 +- 2.6 planes per location, 105 planes in all, each imaged for 92 +- 26 trials at 73% +- 9% correct, 3 +- 1 planes per session.", "source": "Results, Mapping Activity Using Two-Photon Calcium Imaging, paragraph 1; Figure 2E, 2F", "quote": "For each mouse (n = 6), we collected data from 1 to 3 image locations (n = 12 locations in total, Figure 2E), each containing multiple (8.8 \u00b1 2.6) image planes ... Each image plane (n = 105, Figure 2F and S2) was sampled at 14 Hz while mice performed the task for 92 \u00b1 26 trials, with performance at 73% \u00b1 9% trials correct ... allowing sequential imaging of 3 \u00b1 1 planes per session (range 1\u20136", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "partially_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "Six mice and 105 distinct planes, as stated. Reading (a), the four analysed trial types, gives 92.15 +- 25.98 trials per plane at 73.83% +- 9.03% correct, both within tolerance. Reading (b), all trials, gives 107.37 trials, within tolerance, at 63.89% correct, just outside. Planes per session 3.09 +- 1.11, range 1 to 6, over 34 sessions. The 12 locations and the 8.8 planes per location cannot be counted, as the files carry no location identifier; subject and area give 10 combinations, which fits 1 to 3 locations per mouse but does not count them. Every value that could be measured is within tolerance; the outcome is partial because two of the seven could not be tested.", "deviations": [ "The location counts are not tested, for lack of a location identifier." ], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "trials-per-type", "statement": "Each imaged plane had on average 34 +- 13 CR, 36 +- 14 CL, 12 +- 5 ER and 10 +- 4 EL trials.", "source": "Results, Mapping Activity Using Two-Photon Calcium Imaging, paragraph 3", "quote": "average number of trials per imaged plane ... CR ... 34 \u00b1 13, CL ... 36 \u00b1 14; ER ... 12 \u00b1 5, EL ... 10 \u00b1 4", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "Mean trials per plane CR 34.06 +- 13.43, CL 35.51 +- 13.94, ER 12.18 +- 4.71, EL 10.40 +- 4.42, all within the paper's spread. Every plane has at least 3 trials of each type.", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "neuron-counts", "statement": "15,431 neurons were imaged across 6 mice, 8,837 in ALM and 6,594 in MM.", "source": "Results, Mapping Activity Using Two-Photon Calcium Imaging, paragraphs 2 and 3", "quote": "Our sample (15,431 neurons across 6 mice) is therefore biased toward the active population", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "15,431 ROIs over the 105 distinct planes, 8,837 in planes labelled left_alm and 6,594 in planes labelled left_vm1 (reading A1), exactly the paper's counts. Reading A2 cannot be run, as no coordinates are in the files.", "deviations": [ "Area from the files' experiment_description (left_alm, left_vm1), as ImagingPlane.location reads ALM for every plane." ], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fraction-selective-alm-mm", "statement": "A large fraction of neurons distinguished between trial types, 23% in MM (1,523 of 6,594) and 31% in ALM (2,754 of 8,837).", "source": "Results, Mapping Activity Using Two-Photon Calcium Imaging, paragraph 3", "quote": "the activity of a large proportion of neurons distinguished between trial types in MM (23%, 1,523/6,594) ... and ALM (31%, 2,754/8,837", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "not_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "No reading puts all four values within tolerance. The measured values are those of the closest reading, R2, W3, T1, where ALM is 2,853 (32.3%, within tolerance) and MM 1,736 (26.3%), above the tolerance (at most 1,675 and 25.3%); R2, W1, T1 is next, with ALM 2,877 (32.6%) and MM 1,755 (26.6%). Until the second verification the measured values were those of W1, which were given as closest by mistake. Rule R1 marks 78% to 91% of ROIs selective, and 72% to 85% with permuted trial types, so it counts chance bins; R2 with permuted labels gives 10.5% to 14.3%. With T2 bins R2 gives ALM 45% and MM 38% (W1). ALM has the higher fraction under every reading. Without the 1,262 ROIs with a non-positive baseline, MM is 1,675 of 5,854 (28.6%). Among the ROIs the files mark included, ALM 43.6% and MM 34.4%. Per mouse (R2, W1, T1) ALM 25.8% to 40.1% and MM 19.7% to 32.7%. The answer on baselines F0 <= 0 (the paper does not say) made dF/F as computed (V1) the reading that decides, as run before, and V2, without the ROIs with F0 <= 0 on any trial, a check; V2 is now reported for every reading, and none puts all four values within tolerance (R2, T1 gives ALM 2,762 of 8,315, 33.2%, and MM 1,656 of 5,854, 28.3%, in W3, and ALM 2,786, 33.5%, and MM 1,675, 28.6%, in W1). The outcome is unchanged.", "deviations": [ "Reading A2 not run (no coordinates)." ], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "figs5-single-coefficient", "statement": "The selectivity of most neurons can be attributed to one of the three coefficients, especially early in the trial, so most neurons mainly encode one behavioural variable at a time.", "source": "Results, Analysis of Behavior-Related Activity, paragraph 2; Figure S5 (not read)", "quote": "The selectivity of most neurons can be attributed to one of the three coefficients, especially during the early part of the trial (Figure S5)", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "Among ROIs trial-type selective in a bin, the fraction purely selective exceeds one half in all 59 bins (T1) and 63 bins (T2) from trial start to the go cue, 0.845 to 0.928 (T1). After the go cue its mean is 0.793 (T1), 0.784 (T2). With permuted trial types (T1) the fraction is 0.845 to 0.911 and above one half in all 59 bins, so the criterion is met at chance as well; the outcome rests on the criterion, which sets no chance level, and does not show that selectivity is more often single-factor than chance gives.", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig4a-lick-direction-epochs", "statement": "Different neurons coded for lick direction in different epochs, some during the sample and delay epochs before licking, some during the response epoch, and some after the mouse stopped consuming water.", "source": "Results, Analysis of Behavior-Related Activity, paragraph 3; Figure 4A", "quote": "Some neurons were selective during the sample and delay epochs, long before onset of licking ... Other neurons became selective during the response epoch ... Some neurons even represented licking direction after the animal stopped consuming water", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "With T1 bins, 4,125 ROIs are purely lick-direction selective in the delay epoch, 3,611 are first so after the go cue and 4,426 more than 2 s after it (T2 3,825, 3,514 and 4,155). With permuted trial types the counts are 3,273, 2,526 and 3,196, so each group exceeds chance but most of each count is what chance bins give, and the criterion, which asks only that each group exists, is met by the permuted labels too. The time after the last lick is not tested, as lick times are not in the files (the behavioural events of every plane are sample, delay and go).", "deviations": [ "The median last lick, which the criterion reports as the reading of \"stopped consuming water\", cannot be computed; lick times are not in the files." ], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig4b-object-location-memory", "statement": "Many object-location-selective neurons were selective during the sample epoch, and a subset coded object location mainly in the delay epoch after the pole was removed, some up to the end of the delay.", "source": "Results, Analysis of Behavior-Related Activity, paragraph 4; Figure 4B", "quote": "Many of these neurons were selective during the sample epoch when mice explored the object ... However, a subset of neurons coded object location primarily during the delay epoch, after the pole was removed ... Some of these neurons carried information about object location up to the end of the delay epoch", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "With T1 bins, 2,148 ROIs are purely object-location selective in the sample epoch, 2,487 have most of their object-location bins in the delay and 1,149 are selective in the last 0.5 s before the go cue (T2 2,067, 2,483, 1,074). With permuted trial types the counts are 1,694, 1,719 and 707; each group exceeds chance, and the criterion, which asks only that each group exists, is met by the permuted labels too.", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig4c-outcome-after-lick", "statement": "Outcome-selective neurons typically became selective after the answer lick; some preferred correct and others error trials, and some kept the outcome long after the trial ended.", "source": "Results, Analysis of Behavior-Related Activity, paragraph 5; Figure 4C", "quote": "These neurons typically became selective after the answer lick. A subset of the outcome-selective neurons responded preferentially during correct trials ... whereas others responded strongly during error trials", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "not_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "Of 9,431 ROIs purely outcome selective in any bin (T1), 41.3% have their first such bin after the go cue (T2 41.8% of 8,892), below the half the criterion requires. With permuted trial types 8,070 ROIs qualify, 29.6% first after the go cue, so most of the 9,431 are chance bins. Requiring two consecutive bins, a variant that does not decide, leaves 1,463 ROIs, 78.5% first after the go cue. Both signs of gamma occur (4,157 correct-preferring and 5,274 error-preferring at the first bin), and outcome selectivity reaches the end of the window (9.17 s after trial start).", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig5-mixed-response-epoch", "statement": "Most neurons with mixed selectivity were seen during the response epoch; a subset responded in only one trial type and a few switched the variable they coded during the trial.", "source": "Results, Analysis of Behavior-Related Activity, paragraph 6; Figure 5", "quote": "Most of these neurons with \u2018\u2018mixed\u2019\u2019 selectivity were observed during the response epoch", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "76.5% of 23,363 mixed-selective ROI-bins fall after the go cue (T1; T2 77.6%), against 50% of bins and 52.3% with permuted labels. 4,682 ROIs (T1) are purely object-location selective before the go cue and purely lick-direction or outcome selective after it.", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig6-object-location-mm", "statement": "During the sample and early delay epochs, object location was represented mainly in MM.", "source": "Results, Spatial Map of Behavior-Related Activity, paragraph 1; Figure 6B to 6D, 6H", "quote": "During the sample and the early part of the delay epoch, representation of object location was prominent, mainly in MM", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "The fraction of purely object-location-selective ROIs is higher in MM than in ALM in 27 of 31 bins from trial start to 2.2 s and 34 of 38 to 2.7 s (T1; T2 29 of 33 and 37 of 41). Mean fractions 0.037 in MM and 0.012 in ALM to 2.2 s (T1). In every mouse with both areas MM is higher.", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig6-lick-direction-deep-alm-first", "statement": "Neurons selective for lick direction appeared first in the deep layers of ALM, early in the delay epoch.", "source": "Results, Spatial Map of Behavior-Related Activity, paragraph 1; Figure 6D, 6E and 6H", "quote": "Neurons selective for lick direction appeared first in the deep layers of ALM, early in the delay epoch", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "metadata_insufficient", "notebook": null, "notes": "The criterion compares deep and superficial ALM and MM, and the files hold no plane depth (the ImagingPlane has no depth, origin or coordinates, and no other field gives it). The ALM and MM curves are in the notebook under fig6-object-location-mm.", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig6-lick-direction-spread", "statement": "Lick-direction selectivity, in number of neurons and strength, kept increasing and spread across ALM layers and to a minor extent into MM, peaking after the go cue.", "source": "Results, Spatial Map of Behavior-Related Activity, paragraph 1; Figures 6F to 6I and S7 (not read)", "quote": "Lickdirection selectivity, including number of neurons and the strength of coding, continued to increase and spread across ALM layers and to a minor extent into MM (Figure S7), reaching a maximum after the go cue", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "partially_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "Part (a) holds; in ALM the fraction of purely lick-direction-selective ROIs and mean |beta| peak after the go cue (4.44 and 4.66 s, T1; 4.67 and 4.67 s, T2). Part (c) holds; the MM fraction peaks at 0.026 (T1), above its delay mean 0.008 and delay maximum 0.015, and below the ALM peak 0.062, under both readings of its delay value and both bin readings. Part (b), the spread across ALM layers, cannot be tested, as the files hold no depth. The outcome is partial because part (b) is untested, not because it failed. The answer on the MM delay value (the paper does not say) made the mean and the maximum over the delay bins readings of the criterion, (c) holding under one; both were already run and both hold, so nothing changed.", "deviations": [ "Part (b) not tested (no plane depth)." ], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig6-outcome-response-uniform", "statement": "Outcome-selective neurons were seen only during the response epoch, scattered roughly uniformly through ALM and MM; mixed neurons were also seen mainly in the response epoch in both areas.", "source": "Results, Spatial Map of Behavior-Related Activity, paragraph 2; Figure 6G to 6I", "quote": "Outcome-selective neurons, which were observed only during the response epoch, were scattered approximately uniformly throughout ALM and MM", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "not_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "Part (b) holds; averaged over the response epoch the ALM and MM outcome fractions differ by a factor of 1.46 (T1) and 1.45 (T2). Part (a) fails in MM; its largest outcome fraction before the go cue (0.0112, T1) is not below a third of the largest after it (0.0268); in ALM 0.0123 against 0.0373 just passes. T2 gives the same. The pre-cue maxima are near the range of permuted-label fractions (0.0067 to 0.0105), so the test turns on chance fluctuations against a small response peak in MM; part (a) makes no allowance for the false-positive floor of about 1% per bin. Mixed ROIs (reported only) are 2.8 times as frequent in ALM as in MM over the response epoch.", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig6h-preparatory-alm-object-mm", "statement": "Throughout the trial preparatory activity, as the fraction of lick-direction-selective neurons or the average coding coefficient, was most pronounced in ALM, while object location selectivity was mainly limited to MM.", "source": "Results, Spatial Map of Behavior-Related Activity, paragraph 2; Figure 6H, 6I, S6 and S8 (not read)", "quote": "Throughout the trial, preparatory activity, quantified either as fraction of lick direction-selective neuron (Figures 6H and 6I) or as average coding coefficient (Figures S6 and S8), was most pronounced in ALM, whereas object location related selectivity was mainly limited to MM", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "In the delay epoch ALM is above MM on both lick-direction measures in 24 of 42 bins (T1) and 30 of 45 (T2); on the fraction alone in all delay bins, on mean |beta| alone in 24 and 30. From trial start to the go cue MM is above ALM on both object-location measures in 52 of 59 (T1) and 57 of 63 (T2) bins.", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "figs9-photoinhibition-alm-mm", "statement": "Optogenetic inactivation during the delay epoch affected lick direction more in ALM than in MM.", "source": "Results, Spatial Map of Behavior-Related Activity, paragraph 2; Figure S9 (not read); Discussion, paragraph 2", "quote": "Consistently, the effects of optogenetic inactivation during the delay epoch on lick direction were greater in ALM compared to MM", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "data_missing", "notebook": null, "notes": "No photoinhibition data are in the dandiset (its files hold only imaging sessions, and no optogenetics group), and none of the paper's photoinhibition is deposited elsewhere; the CRCNS DOI the paper names is an unfilled placeholder.", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "widefield-mm-to-alm", "statement": "In wide-field imaging, activity during the sample and early delay was most pronounced in MM, and spread forward and laterally to ALM as the delay progressed; after the response it rose across much of motor and somatosensory cortex.", "source": "Results, Mapping Neural Activity Using Wide-Field Imaging; Figure 2B to 2D", "quote": "During the sample and early parts of the delay epoch, activity was most pronounced in MM ... As the delay epoch progressed, activity spread forward and lateral to ALM ... Behavior-related activity therefore shifts from MM to ALM before the behavioral response", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "data_missing", "notebook": null, "notes": "The dandiset holds no wide-field imaging; every file is one two-photon image plane. The CRCNS DOI the paper names for its data is an unfilled placeholder, and no other deposit was found.", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "widefield-contralateral-bilateral", "statement": "Early wide-field activity in MM was contralateral to the whiskers touching the object, and the later ALM activity was in both hemispheres.", "source": "Results, Mapping Neural Activity Using Wide-Field Imaging; Figure S1 (not read)", "quote": "contralateral to the whiskers touching the object (Figure S1) ... across both ALM hemispheres (Figure S1)", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "data_missing", "notebook": null, "notes": "No wide-field imaging is in the dandiset or found elsewhere (see widefield-mm-to-alm).", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "figs4-peak-shift", "statement": "In two-photon imaging, the peak of activity shifted from MM to ALM over the delay.", "source": "Results, Mapping Activity Using Two-Photon Calcium Imaging, paragraph 3; Figure S4 (not read)", "quote": "the peak of activity shifted from MM to ALM over the course of the delay epoch (Figure S4)", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "not_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "Over the whole window the mean dF/F of MM ROIs peaks after that of ALM (6.09 against 4.52 s, T1; 6.14 against 4.54, T2). The ALM mean at the end of the delay (0.212) is above its sample-epoch mean (0.112) and maximum (0.137). The MM mean is dominated by ROIs with a non-positive baseline (range -1.15 to 0.71); without them (V2) MM peaks at 4.80 s, still after ALM. The peak is taken over the whole extracted window (the bins of convention T). Searching only before the go cue, a variant that does not decide, MM peaks before ALM under every bin and dF/F reading (V1 2.08 against 4.16 s with T1 bins and 0.80 against 4.14 s with T2; V2 1.51 against 4.09 s and 1.53 against 4.14 s), and within the delay epoch alone V1 gives 2.08 against 4.16 s (T1) and 2.60 against 4.14 s (T2). The outcome therefore turns on the window of the peak, which the criterion does not name; a question was asked after the first verification (questions/000015.yaml) and is not yet answered, and the outcome is kept on the whole window until it is. The answer on the criterion's terms (the paper does not say) named readings L1 and L2 for the sample-epoch level and E1 (last bin) and E2 (mean over the last 0.5 s) for the end of the delay; E2 is new here. The ALM mean over the last 0.5 s is 0.205 (T1), also above both levels, so the second part holds in all 8 combinations of bins and readings and the first fails in all; the answer on F0 <= 0 made V1 decide and V2 a check, as run before. The outcome is unchanged.", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig8c-pt-deep-only", "statement": "IT neurons were found in both superficial and deep layers, PT neurons only in deep layers; 719 PT and 2,631 IT neurons were imaged in three mice.", "source": "Results, Projection-Specific Coding, paragraph 1; Figure 8C", "quote": "In three mice, we combined retrograde labeling of pyramidal tract (PT) (n = 719) and intratelencephalic (IT) (n = 2,631) neurons ... IT neurons were found in both superficial and deep layers, whereas PT neurons were exclusively in deep layers", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "partially_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "719 PT and 2,631 IT ROIs in three mice (an063, an064, an066), exactly the paper's counts. The depth part (PT only deep, IT in both) cannot be tested, as the files hold no plane depth. The outcome is partial because that part is untested.", "deviations": [ "Depth not tested." ], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig8d-alm-deep-lick-direction", "statement": "In ALM the strongest lick direction selectivity was in the deep layers, where PT and IT neurons were intermingled.", "source": "Results, Projection-Specific Coding, sentence beginning 'In ALM, the strongest lick direction selectivity'; Figures 8D and S10 (not read)", "quote": "In ALM, the strongest lick direction selectivity was observed in the deep layers (Figures 8D and S10), where PT and IT neurons were intermingled", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "metadata_insufficient", "notebook": null, "notes": "The criterion compares deep and superficial ALM, and the files hold no plane depth.", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig8d-pt-contra-bias", "statement": "During the delay epoch, ALM PT neurons showed a bias toward contralateral (lick right) selectivity.", "source": "Results, Projection-Specific Coding, paragraphs 1 and 2; Figure 8D", "quote": "A contra bias during the delay epoch was ... observed in PT neurons (Figure 8D), consistent with previous electrophysiological recordings", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "not_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "The mean beta of 385 ALM PT ROIs over the delay is positive (lick right), 0.0284 with T1 bins, 1.71 hierarchical bootstrap SDs above zero (T2 0.0291, 1.56 SD), short of the 2 SD bound. Without ROIs with a non-positive baseline it is 1.97 (T1) and 1.86 (T2) SD. It is positive in each of the three mice (0.0093 to 0.0341). The direction of the claim holds; its bound does not. The answer on F0 <= 0 (the paper does not say) made V1, the dF/F as computed, decide and V2, without those ROIs, a check; both were run before and the outcome is unchanged.", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig8d-pt-earlier-than-it", "statement": "In ALM, lick direction selectivity (|beta|) was stronger and earlier in PT than in IT neurons, with an onset difference of 1.4 +- 0.6 s (p < 0.01, bootstrap).", "source": "Results, Projection-Specific Coding, paragraph 2; Figure 8D", "quote": "The magnitude of lick direction selectivity (jbj) appeared stronger and earlier in PT than in IT neurons (delta onset time; time when selectivity rose to >6 SD above baseline = 1.4 \u00b1 0.6 s; p < 0.01, bootstrap", "statistics": [ { "about": "onset of mean |beta|, ALM PT against ALM IT", "test": "bootstrap", "p": 0.01, "p_relation": "<", "n": "719 PT and 2,631 IT neurons from 3 mice (all areas)" } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "Reading I2 (all ALM IT). Mean |beta| is larger in PT than in IT (maximum 0.229 against 0.084, T1; 0.231 against 0.085, T2). The answer on the onset rule (the paper does not say) added rule S2, the first bin from which the curve stays above the threshold up to the go cue, beside S1, the first single bin, and fixed the threshold at the baseline mean plus 6 SD, as run before. Under S2 with T2 bins and the bootstrap over cells (H2), the IT minus PT onset is 1.801 s (O1, bootstrap SD 0.415 s, p = 0.003) and 1.401 s (O2, SD 0.434 s, p = 0.006), within 1.4 +- 0.6 s at p < 0.01, so the criterion (one combination) is met; the measured value is the first such combination in the criterion's order (O1, S2, H2). The result rests on those combinations. Every S2 combination is within tolerance (1.29 to 1.80 s), but with T1 bins p is 0.021 (O2) and 0.170 (O1) under H2, and with the hierarchical bootstrap (H1) p is 0.065 to 0.319, with up to 307 of 1,000 resamples having no S2 onset (counted as PT not earlier). Rule S1 gives 0.215 s (T1, O1), 0.200 s (T2) and -1.075 s (T1, O2), with p from 0.31 to 0.52, the earlier outcome (not_reproduced) unchanged under S1. Per mouse (T1, O1, S1) PT is earlier in an063 and an064 and later in an066. Reading I1, deep ALM IT only, could not be run without depth, so the outcome rests on I2. The passing combinations use T2 bins of 66.7 ms, interpolated from frames of 71.7 ms (13.95 Hz) or 70.4 ms (14.20 Hz), so neighbouring T2 bins are correlated; T2 also raises the counts of rule R2 in fraction-selective-alm-mm (ALM 45% against 32.6% with T1).", "deviations": [ "Reading I1 not run (no plane depth)." ], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "ephys-pt-it-onset-not-detected", "statement": "The difference in onset of lick direction selectivity between PT and IT neurons was not detected in an electrophysiology dataset recorded under similar conditions (45 PT and 27 IT cells, Li et al., 2015).", "source": "Results, Projection-Specific Coding, sentence beginning 'However, this difference in lick direction selectivity onset'; Discussion, paragraph beginning 'We analyzed neuronal selectivity'", "quote": "However, this difference in lick direction selectivity onset was not detected in an electrophysiology dataset recorded under similar conditions (Li et al., 2015)", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "Blocked (methods_underspecified) before the answer. The answer (the paper does not say) named the readings, run here on dandiset 000010 version 0.220126.1905. Spike counts in 400 ms windows in 100 ms steps from the sample event, on the 9,828 trials of the four types without photostimulation and without an early lick in the 50 sessions (14 mice) with a tagged unit, each unit counted only in the trials within its observation intervals; 4,152 of 16,571 trials had photostimulation (laser pulses or photostim events) and are left out. One IT unit (mouse 219253) has no ER trial left and cannot be fitted, so 45 PT and 26 IT units are analysed. No combination finds PT earlier at p < 0.01. The IT minus PT onset of mean |beta| is 0.7 s with rule S1 (PT 0.1 s, IT 0.8 s; bootstrap SD 0.66 to 0.75 s, p 0.30 to 0.34) and 0.2 s with rule S2 (PT 1.2 s, IT 1.4 s; SD 0.63 to 0.64 s, p 0.15 to 0.20), under both bootstraps. Baselines O1 and O2 are the same two windows (centres -0.3 and -0.2 s), as spikes are stored only from 0.52 s before the sample event, so the 8 combinations give 4 distinct results, each with a baseline SD from two overlapping windows; the IT baseline SD is 0.0004 (threshold 0.0228 against a mean of 0.0205), and the PT onset under S1 (0.1 s) falls in the sample epoch, so the test carries little information. The difference is positive under every reading but not significant.", "deviations": [ "One of the 27 IT units is left out, as it has no error-right trial without photostimulation.", "Baselines O1 and O2 coincide, as no spikes are stored before 0.52 s ahead of the sample event." ], "disagreed": false, "data": "with_inputs", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "li2015-tagged-units-link", "statement": "The tagged units of dandiset 000010 (Li et al. 2015) are the 45 PT and 27 IT cells of the electrophysiology dataset the paper compares its imaging with.", "source": "Discussion, paragraph beginning 'We analyzed neuronal selectivity'; dandiset 000010 version 0.220126.1905", "quote": "(PT/IT cells; electrophysiology, 45/27; imaging, 719/2,631)", "statistics": [], "kind": "link", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "Dandiset 000010 version 0.220126.1905 labels 45 units PT (40 in sim1-cre and 5 in rbp4-cre mice) and 27 IT (24 in tlx-cre mice, 3 in rbp4-cre), the paper's 45/27, among 1,441 units in 99 files. Matched by label and count only; no identifier links them to the paper's analysis.", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "with_inputs", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig8d-mm-object-location", "statement": "MM neurons showed strong object location selectivity in superficial and deep layers and in PT and IT cells, PT cells particularly in the early delay; neither PT nor IT neurons in MM showed prominent lick direction selectivity before licking.", "source": "Results, Projection-Specific Coding, paragraph beginning 'ALM neurons displayed prominent lick direction selectivity'; Figure 8D; Discussion, paragraph beginning 'Object location selectivity was widespread in MM'", "quote": "In contrast, MM neurons displayed strong object location selectivity in both superficial and deep layers, and in both PT and IT cells. PT neurons in MM also displayed strong object location selectivity particularly during the early delay period ... Neither PT nor IT neurons in MM displayed prominent lick direction selectivity before licking movement", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "metadata_insufficient", "notebook": null, "notes": "Every part of the criterion compares groups split by depth (deep PT, deep IT, deep other, superficial IT, superficial other, and the ALM deep maximum), and the files hold no plane depth. The PT group of part (a) needs no depth if PT neurons are deep, as the paper says (the depth part of fig8c-pt-deep-only is itself untested); it is shown in the notebook and does not decide. The maximum of mean |alpha| from trial start to 2.2 s is 0.623 in MM PT against 0.033 in ALM PT (T1, V1; T2 0.586 against 0.033; V2 0.704 against 0.029), MM larger in 0.977 of the hierarchical resamples holding both groups (29 of 1,000 lack one), with an MM bootstrap SD of 0.617, as large as the mean; 280 of the 334 MM PT ROIs are in 7 planes of an064. Without the depth split MM IT (0.057 against 0.027) and other ROIs (0.122 against 0.025) are also above ALM. On the same account part (c) looks unlikely to hold for PT, as the maximum of mean |beta| before the go cue is 0.523 in MM PT (T1, V1), so the ALM deep maximum would have to exceed 1.047, against 0.112 in ALM PT. 45 of the 47 MM PT ROIs with F0 <= 0 on some trial are in an064.", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig8d-mm-posterior-preferring", "statement": "MM neurons were more active in posterior trials, when the pole was within reach of the whiskers, than in anterior trials.", "source": "Discussion, paragraph beginning 'MM shows little preparatory activity'; Figure 8D", "quote": "Neurons were more active in posterior trials, when the pole was within reach of the whiskers, than in the anterior location, when the pole was out of reach (Figure 8D", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "not_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "The mean alpha of the 6,594 MM ROIs over the sample epoch is positive (posterior preferring), 0.0232 with T1 bins, 1.87 hierarchical bootstrap SDs above zero (T2 0.0242, 1.94), short of the 2 SD bound (1.70 and 1.63 without ROIs with a non-positive baseline). It is positive in all five mice with MM planes, and significant MM ROI-bins in the sample epoch prefer the posterior pole 1,912 times against 747. The direction holds; the bound does not. The answer on F0 <= 0 (the paper does not say) made V1 decide and V2 a check; both were run before and the outcome is unchanged.", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig8d-error-outnumber-correct", "statement": "Overall, neurons preferring error trials outnumbered those preferring correct trials.", "source": "Discussion, paragraph beginning 'We also observed neurons representing trial outcome'; Figure 8D", "quote": "Overall, neurons preferring error trials outnumbered neurons preferring correct trials (Figure 8D", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "not_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "Reading (a) finds error preference; among ROIs purely outcome selective from the go cue to 2.5 s after it, 2,825 prefer error and 2,004 correct trials (T1, binomial p = 2.8e-32; T2 2,730 and 1,933). Reading (b) does not reach its bound; mean gamma over all ROIs is -0.0082 (T1), negative in every mouse, but 1.81 bootstrap SDs from zero (T2 1.70). The criterion requires both readings. The answer on F0 <= 0 (the paper does not say) made V1 decide, as run before, and V2 a check; V2 is now run in full. Under V2 (a) holds (2,722 against 1,927) and (b) reaches 2.20 SD with T1 bins and 2.00 SD with T2, which the printed test puts just short of the bound. The outcome, decided by V1, was partially_reproduced before the first verification and is now not_reproduced; the criterion requires both readings and names no partial outcome, and the other bootstrap claims whose direction holds but whose bound does not (fig8d-pt-contra-bias, fig8d-mm-posterior-preferring) are not_reproduced too.", "deviations": [], "disagreed": true, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig8ef-area-explains-variance", "statement": "Coding is mainly determined by cortical location; cortical area (ALM against MM) and cell depth explain most of the variance of selectivity, more than projection type.", "source": "Results, Projection-Specific Coding, paragraph 4; Figure 8E and 8F", "quote": "Our results suggest that coding of PT and IT neurons is primarily determined by their location in the motor cortex ... Cortical area ... and cell depth ... explained the majority of response variability (Figures 8E and 8F", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "metadata_insufficient", "notebook": null, "notes": "The criterion needs the depth grouping (z < 350 against z >= 350 um) in both of its conditions, and the files hold no plane depth. Area and projection type are in the files, and their total variance explained is computed in the notebook as the criterion defines it, which does not decide. Projection type explains more than area under every reading run, 0.0013 against 0.0005 (N1, T1, V1; area 0.0007 under N2), the same order with T2 and with V2, but the hierarchical bootstrap does not separate them (SD 0.0019 for area, 0.0011 for projection type; area above projection type in 0.414 of resamples). If the order holds, area is not the largest grouping and the claim cannot be reproduced; whether it is partially reproduced or not depends on depth.", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "ephys-selective-counts", "statement": "Of 567 single units recorded with silicon probes in left ALM and MM of 3 mice, 393 distinguished trial types, 115 in the sample, 182 in the delay and 309 in the response epoch.", "source": "Results, Comparison with Extracellular Electrophysiology, paragraph 2; Methods, Electrophysiology data analysis", "quote": "We recorded single units (n = 567, 3 mice) in the left ALM and MM under identical behavioral conditions as the imaging experiments. The spikes rates of 393 neurons distinguished trial types during either sample (n = 115), delay (n = 182), or response epoch (n = 309", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "other", "notebook": null, "notes": "The silicon probe recordings are not in the dandiset, which holds only imaging. The claims file places them at CRCNS doi 10.6080/K0S180F9, the deposit the paper names; that DOI resolves to a placeholder record (title \"CRCNS.org ssc-8TBD\", \"This data is not yet available but is expected to be sometime during 2017\", size \"TBD\"), as the notebook prints from its DataCite record. That CRCNS ssc-8 holds an unrelated dataset (Goncalves et al.) was seen while preparing and is not run in the notebook. A search of DANDI by the paper's DOI and by its authors, run in the notebook, finds only dandiset 000015; CRCNS was searched while preparing, not in the notebook, and no other copy was found there. The data are not public as far as these searches show, so the claim cannot be tested; the registry's check does not allow data_missing for a claim with data elsewhere, so the reason is given as other.", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "elsewhere", "where": "CRCNS doi:10.6080/K0S180F9", "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig7d-ephys-area-distribution", "statement": "In the silicon probe recordings, object-location-selective neurons were most frequent in MM, lick-direction-selective neurons mainly in ALM, and outcome and mixed neurons numerous in both; most object location, lick direction and outcome selectivity fell in the sample, delay/response and response epochs.", "source": "Results, Comparison with Extracellular Electrophysiology, paragraph 2; Figure 7D", "quote": "The majority of object location-, lick direction-, and outcome-selective neurons were observed during sample, delay/response, and response epochs, respectively (Figure 7D). Neurons selective for object location were observed most frequently in MM; neurons selective for lick direction were mainly observed in ALM; neurons selective for outcome and mixed neurons were numerous in both ALM and MM", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "other", "notebook": null, "notes": "Depends on ephys-selective-counts; the silicon probe recordings are not public at the DOI the paper names or on DANDI (see that claim).", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "elsewhere", "where": "CRCNS doi:10.6080/K0S180F9", "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig1c-whisking-similar", "statement": "Whisker movements were similar across the four trial types, so neurons coding whisker movement were likely classed as non-selective.", "source": "Discussion, paragraph beginning 'MM shows little preparatory activity'; Figure 1C", "quote": "In our experiments, whisker movements were similar across trial types (Figure 1) and neurons encoding whisker movements were likely classified as \u2018\u2018non-selective.\u2019\u2019", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "data_missing", "notebook": null, "notes": "The dandiset holds no whisker video or tracking, and none is deposited elsewhere.", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "alm-pt-it-lick-fraction-below-20", "statement": "Even in ALM, less than 20% of PT or IT cells displayed lick direction selectivity at any given time, and the onset timing was variable.", "source": "Discussion, paragraph beginning 'We analyzed neuronal selectivity'; Figures 6, 8 and S10 (not read)", "quote": "even in ALM, less than 20% of PT or IT cells displayed lick direction selectivity at any given time (Figures 6, 8, and S10), and the onset timing was variable", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "notes": "The largest per-bin fraction of lick-direction-selective ALM PT ROIs is 12.7% (reading a, purely selective) or 15.6% (reading b, beta significant), and of ALM IT ROIs 3.3% or 6.0% (T1); with T2 at most 16.1%. Per mouse at most 19.8% (an063, PT, reading b). All below 22%.", "deviations": [], "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null } ], "findings": [ { "kind": "other", "statement": "Every one of the 105 image planes is deposited twice, as two files with different names, identifiers and digests (for example an041_2014-08-23_21 and an041_2014-08-23_43) whose contents are otherwise identical. The archive's file count (210) is twice the number of recordings." }, { "kind": "metadata_error", "statement": "ImagingPlane.location is \"ALM\" in every file, including the 47 planes whose experiment_description says left_vm1 (the paper's MM). The area per plane is given only by experiment_description, and with it the counts match the paper (8,837 ALM and 6,594 MM ROIs)." }, { "kind": "metadata_insufficient", "statement": "The files hold no plane depth, no stereotactic coordinates of the planes or cells, and no identifier of the imaging location within a mouse; no text value in any of the 105 planes (descriptions, keywords and attributes included) names a depth, a coordinate or a layer. Four of the paper's findings rest on depth and cannot be tested, nor can the depth parts of three others; the 12 imaging locations cannot be counted." }, { "kind": "data_missing", "statement": "The dandiset holds only the two-photon imaging. The wide-field imaging, the whisker tracking, the lick times, the photoinhibition behaviour and the silicon probe recordings (567 units) are not in it. The paper's Key Resources Table names CRCNS doi 10.6080/K0S180F9 for its imaging and electrophysiology, and that DOI resolves to a placeholder record that says the data are not yet available." }, { "kind": "metadata_insufficient", "statement": "The ROI table's `included` column (\"whether to include this roi into later analyses\") marks 8,655 of 15,431 ROIs, without saying what excluded the others; the paper's counts use all 15,431." }, { "kind": "metadata_insufficient", "statement": "The trial table's start_time is 0.623 s before the sample event in every trial, while the paper's trial start is pole movement onset (the sample event, 4.2 s before the go cue). The offset is not described. Early-lick trials have instruction and outcome \"non-performing\", so their pole position is not recorded." }, { "kind": "other", "statement": "With the stored ROI and neuropil traces and the paper's r = 0.7, the baseline F0 is zero or negative on 0.26% of ROI-trials, in 1,262 ROIs, and dF/F reaches thousands; the mean dF/F of MM is dominated by these ROIs. The paper does not say how they were treated (a reader confirmed this in answer to a question)." } ], "verifications": [ { "date": "2026-10-21", "kind": "agent", "by": "Independent agent run by CatalystNeuro (same harness, separate context, did not write the notebook)", "reviewed": "Round 1. The executed notebook of the run after the answers, with the conclusion cells and the summary removed, the helper module and the claims file, with the paper. The verifier queried the archive API and tested the helper functions on synthetic inputs (anova3 against statsmodels' type-3 ANOVA, the coefficients, the null false-positive rate, onset, joint_resample, grid and dff_trials). Report in transcripts/000015/verifier-1-report.md. It agrees with 32 of the 33 outcomes and would give not_reproduced for fig8d-error-outnumber-correct.", "agreed": 32, "of": 33, "disagreements": [ { "claim": "fig8d-error-outnumber-correct", "outcome": "not_reproduced", "reason": "Cell 52, (a) holds (2,825 against 2,004, p = 3e-32). (b) fails under V1 (-1.81 SD; T2 -1.70); only V2/T1 passes (-2.20). The criterion needs both. V1 against V2 decides pass or fail here (problem 1); V1 follows the claims file." } ] }, { "date": "2026-10-21", "kind": "agent", "by": "Independent agent run by CatalystNeuro (same harness, separate context, did not write the notebook)", "reviewed": "Round 2. The full executed notebook of the run after the first revision, with the conclusions and the summary, the helper module, the claims file and this record, with the paper. Report in transcripts/000015/verifier-2-report.md. It agrees with all 33 outcomes. Other points of the report, with the reply. The README gave about fifteen minutes against 19.7 min printed; it now says about twenty (this run printed 20.4 min). The verifier could not check the statement that five questions were answered, as questions/000015.yaml was not among its materials; the file holds six questions, five answered with \"the paper does not say\" and one (the figs4-peak-shift window) open, as the notebook header says. It noted that the round-1 reasons cite round-1 cell numbers, which no longer match the notebook; those reasons are kept as given. It has not viewed the rendered figures and relied on the printed ranges.", "agreed": 33, "of": 33, "disagreements": [] } ] } ], "entries": [ { "name": "000015-chen-2017", "type": "reproduction", "title": "Anticipatory activity in mouse motor cortex (Chen et al. 2017)", "description": "Tests the findings of Chen, Li, Daie and Svoboda (2017) on dandiset 000015, which holds two-photon imaging of 105 image planes in left ALM and MM of six mice during a tactile delayed response task, with PT and IT labels in three of them. It tests the trial and neuron counts, the selectivity of single neurons for object location, lick direction and outcome, its map over ALM and MM, and the coding of PT and IT neurons. The plane depth, wide-field imaging, whisker tracking, photoinhibition and silicon probe data are not in the dandiset.", "datasets": [ "dandi:000010", "dandi:000015" ], "papers": [ "10.1016/j.neuron.2017.05.005" ], "derived_from": [], "notebooks": [ { "path": "reproduce_chen_2017.ipynb", "title": "Reproducing Chen et al. (2017) from dandiset 000015", "executed": "notebooks/000015-chen-2017/reproduce_chen_2017.html" } ] } ] }