Interactive Lab

Practice in short loops: checkpoint quiz, microtask decision, and competency progress tracking.

Checkpoint Quiz

Q1. Which output most clearly demonstrates module competency?

A measurable artifact linked to an explicit method A general reflection about interest in neuroscience A list of future goals without evidence

Competency is shown through measurable, method-linked evidence.

Q2. What should always accompany a technical claim in this curriculum?

A limitation or uncertainty statement A motivational quote A citation count

Every claim should include boundaries and uncertainty.

Q3. What is the best next step after identifying a gap in understanding?

Define a concrete practice task and verification criterion Skip to a harder module Ignore the gap if progress is slow

Progress improves when gaps become explicit practice targets.

Submit Quiz

Process ID Microtask

To distinguish axon vs dendrite reliably, prioritize:

Multiple cues across morphology and context Single visual cue in one slice Random choice then post hoc justification

Check Decision

Progress Tracker

State is saved locally in your browser for this module.

• Read capability target
• Complete studio activity
• Review assessment rubric
• Pass checkpoint quiz
• Complete microtask
• Complete annotation challenge

0% complete

Reset Progress

Axon-vs-Dendrite Annotation

Click the hotspot most likely to be a dendritic segment given local context.

A B C

Selected hotspot: none

Check Annotation

Capability target

Detect and categorize core segmentation errors and execute one correction cycle with documented quality impact.

Core workflow

1. Load segmented patch.
2. Identify merge/split candidates.
3. Apply correction protocol.
4. Recalculate quality indicators.
5. Log decisions.

60-minute tutorial run-of-show

1. 00:00-08: segmentation goals.
2. 08:00-22: error taxonomy examples.
3. 22:00-36: guided correction round.
4. 36:00-48: quality-metric interpretation.
5. 48:00-60: debrief and competency check.

Studio activity

Run one correction loop on a sample patch set and submit before/after notes.

Assessment rubric

• Minimum: correct error labels and one valid correction.
• Strong: correction prioritization tied to downstream impact.
• Failure: correction without evidence of quality change.

Teaching resources

• Technical Unit 08
• Connectome Quality tool

Quick practice prompt

Explain when you would defer a correction instead of fixing immediately.