Measuring individual identity information in animal signals: Overview and performance of available identity metrics

Identity signals have been studied for over 50 years but there is no consensus as to how to quantify individuality. While there are a variety of different metrics to quantify individual identity, or individuality, these methods remain un-validated and the relationships between them unclear. We contrasted three univariate and four multivariate metrics (and their different computational variants) and evaluated their performance on simulated and empirical datasets. Of the metrics examined, Beecher’s information statistic (HS) was the best one and could easily and reliably be converted into the commonly used discrimination score (and vice versa) after accounting for the number of individuals and calls per individual in a given dataset. Although Beecher’s information statistic is not entirely independent of sampling parameters, this problem can be removed by reducing the number of parameters or by increasing the number of individuals. Because it is easily calculated, has superior performance, can be used to describe single variables or signal as a whole, and because it tells us the maximum number of individuals that can be discriminated given a set of measurements, we recommend that individuality should be quantified using Beecher’s information statistic.

[1]  J. Bradbury,et al.  Principles of animal communication, 2nd ed. , 2011 .

[2]  G. Zararsiz,et al.  MVN: An R Package for Assessing Multivariate Normality , 2014, R J..

[3]  I. Charrier,et al.  Mother–Calf vocal communication in Atlantic walrus: a first field experimental study , 2010, Animal Cognition.

[4]  G. Carter,et al.  Adult Vampire Bats Produce Contact Calls When Isolated: Acoustic Variation by Species, Population, Colony, and Individual , 2012, PloS one.

[5]  Aaron C. Koralek,et al.  What the hyena's laugh tells: Sex, age, dominance and individual signature in the giggling call of Crocuta crocuta , 2010, BMC Ecology.

[6]  J. Dale,et al.  Individual recognition: it is good to be different. , 2007, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[7]  S. Stafford,et al.  Multivariate Statistics for Wildlife and Ecology Research , 2000, Springer New York.

[8]  Individual Variation , 1910, Botanical Gazette.

[9]  P. Marler,et al.  Communication Goes Multimodal , 1999, Science.

[10]  Individual differences in facial configuration in large-billed crows , 2013, acta ethologica.

[11]  T Lengagne,et al.  A method of independent time and frequency decomposition of bioacoustic signals: inter-individual recognition in four species of penguins. , 1997, Comptes rendus de l'Academie des sciences. Serie III, Sciences de la vie.

[12]  M. Špinka,et al.  Ontogeny of individual and litter identity signaling in grunts of piglets. , 2017, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  H. E. Winn,et al.  Signature information in the song of the humpback whale , 1979 .

[14]  D. B. Miller,et al.  Species-typical and individually distinctive acoustic features of crow calls of red jungle fowl. , 2010, Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie.

[15]  Peter K. McGregor,et al.  Census and monitoring based on individually identifiable vocalizations: the role of neural networks , 2002 .

[16]  David Reby,et al.  Cross-modal individual recognition in domestic horses (Equus caballus) , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  E. Chadwick,et al.  Scent signals individual identity and country of origin in otters , 2015 .

[18]  T. Dabelsteen,et al.  Acoustic cues to individual identity in the rattle calls of common blackbirds: a potential for individual recognition through multi-syllabic vocalisations emitted in both territorial and alarm contexts , 2015 .

[19]  E. Briefer,et al.  Cross-modal recognition of familiar conspecifics in goats , 2017, Royal Society Open Science.

[20]  Pierre Bellec,et al.  A Bayesian Alternative to Mutual Information for the Hierarchical Clustering of Dependent Random Variables , 2015, PloS one.

[21]  M. Nachman,et al.  Morphological and population genomic evidence that human faces have evolved to signal individual identity , 2014, Nature Communications.

[22]  T. Osiejuk,et al.  Is it possible to acoustically identify individuals within a population? , 2014, Journal of Ornithology.

[23]  E. Briefer,et al.  Social effects on vocal ontogeny in an ungulate, the goat, Capra hircus , 2012, Animal Behaviour.

[24]  Roger Mundry,et al.  Discriminant function analysis with nonindependent data: consequences and an alternative , 2007, Animal Behaviour.

[25]  T. Osiejuk,et al.  Formant Frequencies are Acoustic Cues to Caller Discrimination and are a Weak Indicator of the Body Size of Corncrake Males , 2013 .

[26]  S. Partan Ten unanswered questions in multimodal communication , 2013, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[27]  Irena Schneiderová Frequency-modulated second elements of two-element alarm calls do not enhance discrimination of callers in three Eurasian ground squirrels , 2012 .

[28]  Daniel T. Blumstein,et al.  Pre‐screening acoustic and other natural signatures for use in noninvasive individual identification , 2010 .

[29]  Andreas M. Ali,et al.  Acoustic monitoring in terrestrial environments using microphone arrays: applications, technological considerations and prospectus , 2011 .

[30]  Thierry Aubin,et al.  Individuality in the voice of the emperor penguin Aptenodytes forsteri: adaptation to a noisy environment , 2010 .

[31]  W. Thorpe,et al.  The Basis for Individual Recognition By Voice in the Sandwich Tern (Sterna Sandvicensis) , 1968 .

[32]  Michael D. Beecher,et al.  Signature Systems and Kin Recognition , 1982 .

[33]  P. Stoddard,et al.  Acoustic adaptations for parent-offspring recognition in swallows. , 1986, Experimental biology.

[34]  Brian D. Ripley,et al.  Modern Applied Statistics with S Fourth edition , 2002 .

[35]  Dan Stowell,et al.  Automatic acoustic identification of individuals in multiple species: improving identification across recording conditions , 2019, Journal of the Royal Society Interface.

[36]  E. N. Lapshina,et al.  The ontogeny of acoustic individuality in the nasal calls of captive goitred gazelles, Gazella subgutturosa , 2012, Behavioural Processes.

[37]  Humberto Ortiz-Zuazaga,et al.  patternize: An R package for quantifying colour pattern variation , 2017, Methods in ecology and evolution.

[38]  G. Fonseca,et al.  Gender, Age, and Identity in the Isolation Calls of Antillean Manatees ( Trichechus manatus manatus ) , 2008 .

[39]  Gerard V. Trunk,et al.  A Problem of Dimensionality: A Simple Example , 1979, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[40]  Leanne Proops,et al.  Cross-modal individual recognition in domestic horses (Equus caballus) extends to familiar humans , 2012, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[41]  P. Jouventin,et al.  How to measure information carried by a modulated vocal signature? , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[42]  L A Dugatkin,et al.  Evolving cooperation: the role of individual recognition. , 1996, Bio Systems.

[43]  M. A. Bee,et al.  Individual variation in advertisement calls of territorial male green frogs, Rana clamitans : implications for individual discrimination , 2001 .

[44]  Daniel T. Blumstein,et al.  Social Group Size Predicts the Evolution of Individuality , 2011, Current Biology.

[45]  M. D. Beecher Signalling systems for individual recognition: an information theory approach , 1989, Animal Behaviour.

[46]  R. Wiley,et al.  Specificity and multiplicity in the recognition of individuals: implications for the evolution of social behaviour , 2013, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[47]  E. Tibbetts,et al.  Complex social behaviour can select for variability in visual features: a case study in Polistes wasps , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[48]  M. Lein Song Variation In Buff-Breasted Flycatchers (Empidonax fulvifrons) , 2008 .

[49]  William L. Allen,et al.  Assessing the potential information content of multicomponent visual signals: a machine learning approach , 2015, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[50]  Klaus Zuberbühler,et al.  A method for automated individual, species and call type recognition in free-ranging animals , 2013, Animal Behaviour.

[51]  K. Furton,et al.  The Equine Volatilome: Volatile Organic Compounds as Discriminatory Markers , 2018 .

[52]  G. Wilkinson Reciprocal food sharing in the vampire bat , 1984, Nature.

[53]  I. Charrier,et al.  A review of social recognition in pinnipeds , 2003 .

[54]  J. Arnould,et al.  Individual variation in the pup attraction call produced by female Australian fur seals during early lactation. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[55]  Clara Pizzuti,et al.  FOR CLOSENESS : ADJUSTING NORMALIZED MUTUAL INFORMATION MEASURE FOR CLUSTERING COMPARISON , 2016 .

[56]  Martin Šálek,et al.  The assessment of biases in the acoustic discrimination of individuals , 2017, PloS one.

[57]  Frédéric E Theunissen,et al.  Zebra finches identify individuals using vocal signatures unique to each call type , 2018, Nature Communications.