Manual versus automatic identification of black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) vocalizations

Brandi S. Goddard, Vala Ingolfsson, C. Montenegro, C. Sturdy
{"title":"Manual versus automatic identification of black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) vocalizations","authors":"Brandi S. Goddard, Vala Ingolfsson, C. Montenegro, C. Sturdy","doi":"10.29173/aar48","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One time-consuming aspect of bioacoustic research is identifying vocalizations from long audio recordings. SongScope (version 4.1.5. Wildlife Acoustics, Inc.) is a computer program capable of developing acoustic recognizers that can identify wildlife vocalizations. The goal of the current study was to compare the effectiveness of manual identification of black-capped chickadee vocalizations to identification by SongScope recognizers. A recognizer was developed for each main chickadee vocalization by providing previously annotated audio of chickadees. Six chickadees (three male, three female) were recorded in one-hour intervals with and without anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) noise to provide a variety of samples to test the recognizer. These recordings were analyzed via the recognizer and two human coders, with an additional third coder reviewing a random subset of recordings for reliability. Strong agreement was found between the human coders, κ = 0.76, p < 0.00. Agreement between human coders and the recognizer was moderate for fee songs, κ = 0.46, p < 0.00, and strong for fee-bee songs, κ = 0.77, p < 0.00, as well as for chick-a-dee calls, κ = 0.82, p < 0.00. Results showed that male chickadees produced more tseet calls in silence and females produced more gargle calls during noise. No differences were found in vocalizations based on time of day. Our observations also suggest that the chick-a-dee recognizer was capable of identifying gargle and tseet calls along with the intended chick-a-dee calls. Overall, SongScope was effective at identifying fee-bee songs and chick-a-dee calls, but not as effective for identifying fee songs. These recognizers can allow for faster acoustic analyses (by approximately four times) and be continuously improved for greater accuracy.","PeriodicalId":239812,"journal":{"name":"Alberta Academic Review","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alberta Academic Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29173/aar48","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One time-consuming aspect of bioacoustic research is identifying vocalizations from long audio recordings. SongScope (version 4.1.5. Wildlife Acoustics, Inc.) is a computer program capable of developing acoustic recognizers that can identify wildlife vocalizations. The goal of the current study was to compare the effectiveness of manual identification of black-capped chickadee vocalizations to identification by SongScope recognizers. A recognizer was developed for each main chickadee vocalization by providing previously annotated audio of chickadees. Six chickadees (three male, three female) were recorded in one-hour intervals with and without anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) noise to provide a variety of samples to test the recognizer. These recordings were analyzed via the recognizer and two human coders, with an additional third coder reviewing a random subset of recordings for reliability. Strong agreement was found between the human coders, κ = 0.76, p < 0.00. Agreement between human coders and the recognizer was moderate for fee songs, κ = 0.46, p < 0.00, and strong for fee-bee songs, κ = 0.77, p < 0.00, as well as for chick-a-dee calls, κ = 0.82, p < 0.00. Results showed that male chickadees produced more tseet calls in silence and females produced more gargle calls during noise. No differences were found in vocalizations based on time of day. Our observations also suggest that the chick-a-dee recognizer was capable of identifying gargle and tseet calls along with the intended chick-a-dee calls. Overall, SongScope was effective at identifying fee-bee songs and chick-a-dee calls, but not as effective for identifying fee songs. These recognizers can allow for faster acoustic analyses (by approximately four times) and be continuously improved for greater accuracy.
黑冠山雀(Poecile atricapillus)发声的人工与自动识别
生物声学研究的一个耗时的方面是从长录音中识别发声。SongScope(版本4.1.5)。野生动物声学公司(Wildlife Acoustics, Inc.)是一个能够开发声音识别器的计算机程序,可以识别野生动物的声音。本研究的目的是比较人工识别黑冠山雀鸣叫与SongScope识别器识别的有效性。通过提供先前注释的山雀音频,为每个主要的山雀发声开发了一个识别器。每隔一小时记录6只山雀(3只雄性,3只雌性)在有或没有人为(即人为)噪音的情况下的叫声,以提供各种样本来测试识别器。这些录音通过识别器和两名人类编码员进行分析,另外还有第三名编码员审查随机的录音子集以确保可靠性。人类编码者之间存在明显的一致性,κ = 0.76, p < 0.00。人类编码者与识别器之间的一致性对收费歌曲为中等,κ = 0.46, p < 0.00,对收费蜜蜂歌曲为强烈,κ = 0.77, p < 0.00,对小鸡叫声为κ = 0.82, p < 0.00。结果表明,雄性山雀在安静环境下发出更多的叫声,而雌性山雀在噪音环境下发出更多的漱口声。根据一天中的不同时间,它们的叫声没有差异。我们的观察还表明,鸡鸣识别器能够识别出漱口和set叫声以及预定的鸡鸣叫声。总体而言,SongScope在识别蜜蜂叫声和鸡鸣叫声方面很有效,但在识别蜜蜂叫声方面效果不佳。这些识别器可以允许更快的声学分析(大约四倍),并不断改进以提高准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信