Cargando…

Designing better frog call recognition models

Advances in bioacoustic technology, such as the use of automatic recording devices, allow wildlife monitoring at large spatial scales. However, such technology can produce enormous amounts of audio data that must be processed and analyzed. One potential solution to this problem is the use of automat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Crump, Paul S., Houlahan, Jeff
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5415519/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28480008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2730
_version_ 1783233532193144832
author Crump, Paul S.
Houlahan, Jeff
author_facet Crump, Paul S.
Houlahan, Jeff
author_sort Crump, Paul S.
collection PubMed
description Advances in bioacoustic technology, such as the use of automatic recording devices, allow wildlife monitoring at large spatial scales. However, such technology can produce enormous amounts of audio data that must be processed and analyzed. One potential solution to this problem is the use of automated sound recognition tools, but we lack a general framework for developing and validating these tools. Recognizers are computer models of an animal sound assembled from “training data” (i.e., actual samples of vocalizations). The settings of variables used to create recognizers can impact performance, and the use of different settings can result in large differences in error rates that can be exploited for different monitoring objectives. We used Song Scope (Wildlife Acoustics Inc.) to build recognizers and vocalizations of the wood frog (Lithobates sylvaticus) to test how different settings and amounts of training data influence recognizer performance. Performance was evaluated using precision (the probability of a recognizer match being a true match) and sensitivity (the proportion of vocalizations detected) based on a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve‐determined score threshold. Evaluations were conducted using recordings not used to build the recognizer. Wood frog recognizer performance was sensitive to setting changes in four out of nine variables, and small improvements were achieved by using additional training data from different sites and from the same recording, but not from different recordings from the same site. Overall, the effect of changes to variable settings was much greater than the effect of increasing training data. Additionally, by testing the performance of the recognizer on vocalizations not used to build the recognizer, we discovered that Type I error rates appear idiosyncratic and do not recommend extrapolation from training to new data, whereas Type II errors showed more consistency and extrapolation can be justified. Optimizing variable settings on independent recordings led to a better match between recognizer performance and monitoring objectives. We provide general recommendations for application of this methodology with other species and make some suggestions for improvements.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5415519
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54155192017-05-05 Designing better frog call recognition models Crump, Paul S. Houlahan, Jeff Ecol Evol Original Research Advances in bioacoustic technology, such as the use of automatic recording devices, allow wildlife monitoring at large spatial scales. However, such technology can produce enormous amounts of audio data that must be processed and analyzed. One potential solution to this problem is the use of automated sound recognition tools, but we lack a general framework for developing and validating these tools. Recognizers are computer models of an animal sound assembled from “training data” (i.e., actual samples of vocalizations). The settings of variables used to create recognizers can impact performance, and the use of different settings can result in large differences in error rates that can be exploited for different monitoring objectives. We used Song Scope (Wildlife Acoustics Inc.) to build recognizers and vocalizations of the wood frog (Lithobates sylvaticus) to test how different settings and amounts of training data influence recognizer performance. Performance was evaluated using precision (the probability of a recognizer match being a true match) and sensitivity (the proportion of vocalizations detected) based on a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve‐determined score threshold. Evaluations were conducted using recordings not used to build the recognizer. Wood frog recognizer performance was sensitive to setting changes in four out of nine variables, and small improvements were achieved by using additional training data from different sites and from the same recording, but not from different recordings from the same site. Overall, the effect of changes to variable settings was much greater than the effect of increasing training data. Additionally, by testing the performance of the recognizer on vocalizations not used to build the recognizer, we discovered that Type I error rates appear idiosyncratic and do not recommend extrapolation from training to new data, whereas Type II errors showed more consistency and extrapolation can be justified. Optimizing variable settings on independent recordings led to a better match between recognizer performance and monitoring objectives. We provide general recommendations for application of this methodology with other species and make some suggestions for improvements. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-03-30 /pmc/articles/PMC5415519/ /pubmed/28480008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2730 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Crump, Paul S.
Houlahan, Jeff
Designing better frog call recognition models
title Designing better frog call recognition models
title_full Designing better frog call recognition models
title_fullStr Designing better frog call recognition models
title_full_unstemmed Designing better frog call recognition models
title_short Designing better frog call recognition models
title_sort designing better frog call recognition models
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5415519/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28480008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2730
work_keys_str_mv AT crumppauls designingbetterfrogcallrecognitionmodels
AT houlahanjeff designingbetterfrogcallrecognitionmodels