Classification threshold and training data affect the quality and utility of focal species data processed with automated audio-recognition software

ABSTRACT Automated recognition is increasingly used to extract information about species vocalizations from audio recordings. During processing, recognizers calculate the probability of correct classification (“score”) for each acoustic signal assessed. Our goal was to investigate the implications of recognizer score for ecological research and monitoring. We trained four recognizers with clips of Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) calls recorded at different distances: near, midrange, far, and mixed distances. We found distance explained 49% and 41% of the variation in score for the near and mixed-distance recognizers, but only 3% and 6% of the variation for the midrange and far recognizers. We calculated detection functions for each of the recognizers at various score thresholds and found that the detection function for the near and mixed-distance recognizers satisfied the assumptions of density estimation for most score thresholds, while the detection function for the midrange and far recognizers did not. The detection functions also showed that score threshold choice is a decision about sampling area, not just about the balance between recall and precision. Overall, we showed that training recognizers with ‘high-quality’ clips that were recorded at close range will improve the utility of the data without affecting how many true positives the recognizer detects.

[1]  C. Harris Absorption of Sound in Air versus Humidity and Temperature , 1966 .

[2]  Hjalmar S. Kühl,et al.  Assessing the performance of a semi‐automated acoustic monitoring system for primates , 2015 .

[3]  James D. Nichols,et al.  A new framework for analysing automated acoustic species detection data: Occupancy estimation and optimization of recordings post‐processing , 2017 .

[4]  Erin M. Bayne,et al.  Utility of Automated Species Recognition For Acoustic Monitoring of Owls , 2018, Journal of Raptor Research.

[5]  P. Roe,et al.  Timed Probabilistic Automaton : Bridge between Automatic Species Recognition , 2013 .

[6]  Len Thomas,et al.  Estimating cetacean population density using fixed passive acoustic sensors: an example with Blainville's beaked whales. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Therese M. Donovan,et al.  Assessment of Error Rates in Acoustic Monitoring with the R package monitoR , 2016 .

[8]  P. Slater,et al.  Bird Song: Biological Themes and Variations , 1995 .

[9]  Clive K. Catchpole,et al.  Bird song: Biological themes and variations, 2nd ed. , 2008 .

[10]  S. Parsons,et al.  Human vs. machine : identification of bat species from their echolocation calls by humans and by artificial neural networks , 2008 .

[11]  Olaf Jahn,et al.  Automated Sound Recognition Provides Insights into the Behavioral Ecology of a Tropical Bird , 2017, PloS one.

[12]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[13]  Jane E. Austin,et al.  Evaluation of autonomous recording units for detecting 3 species of secretive marsh birds , 2015 .

[14]  T. Mitchell Aide,et al.  Real-time bioacoustics monitoring and automated species identification , 2013, PeerJ.

[15]  P. Tyack,et al.  Estimating animal population density using passive acoustics , 2012, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[16]  Erin M. Bayne,et al.  Recommendations for acoustic recognizer performance assessment with application to five common automated signal recognition programs , 2017 .

[17]  Matthew D. Frey,et al.  Using digital recordings and sonogram analysis to obtain counts of yellow rails , 2016 .

[18]  Daniel J. Mennill,et al.  Comparison of manual and automated methods for identifying target sounds in audio recordings of Pileated, Pale-billed, and putative Ivory-billed woodpeckers , 2009 .

[19]  Péter Sólymos,et al.  Calibrating indices of avian density from non‐standardized survey data: making the most of a messy situation , 2013 .

[20]  Klaus Riede,et al.  Automatic bird sound detection in long real-field recordings: Applications and tools , 2014 .

[21]  Stephen T. Buckland,et al.  Distance Sampling: Methods and Applications , 2015 .

[22]  Todor Ganchev,et al.  Bird acoustic activity detection based on morphological filtering of the spectrogram , 2015 .

[23]  C. Conway,et al.  Field evaluation of distance-estimation error during wetland-dependent bird surveys , 2012, Wildlife Research.

[24]  J. T. Armstrong Breeding Home Range in the Nighthawk and Other Birds: Its Evolutionary and Ecological Significance , 1965 .

[25]  T. Mitchell Aide,et al.  Improving distribution data of threatened species by combining acoustic monitoring and occupancy modelling , 2016 .

[26]  Marc J. Mazerolle,et al.  Comparison of semiautomated bird song recognition with manual detection of recorded bird song samples , 2017 .

[27]  Common Nighthawk Recovery Strategy for the Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) in Canada , 2015 .

[28]  Murray G. Efford,et al.  Bird population density estimated from acoustic signals , 2009 .

[29]  Naoya Oosugi,et al.  Semi-Automatic Classification of Birdsong Elements Using a Linear Support Vector Machine , 2014, PloS one.

[30]  Todor Ganchev,et al.  Automated acoustic detection of Vanellus chilensis lampronotus , 2015, Expert Syst. Appl..

[31]  Hervé Glotin,et al.  Bird detection in audio: A survey and a challenge , 2016, 2016 IEEE 26th International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing (MLSP).

[32]  Sandrine Pavoine,et al.  Rapid Acoustic Survey for Biodiversity Appraisal , 2008, PloS one.

[33]  David A. Nicholson,et al.  Comparison of machine learning methods applied to birdsong element classification , 2016, SciPy.

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

[35]  Therese M. Donovan,et al.  A comparison of acoustic monitoring methods for common anurans of the northeastern United States , 2016 .

[36]  Stephen Marsland,et al.  Automated birdsong recognition in complex acoustic environments: a review , 2018 .

[37]  Matthew Crosby,et al.  Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence , 2014 .

[38]  DELSASSO LEONARD Absorption of Sound in Air versus Humidity and Temperature , 2004 .

[39]  B. Furnas,et al.  Using automated recorders and occupancy models to monitor common forest birds across a large geographic region , 2015 .

[40]  Michael Towsey,et al.  A practical comparison of manual and autonomous methods for acoustic monitoring , 2013 .

[41]  Mark D Skowronski,et al.  Acoustic detection and classification of Microchiroptera using machine learning: lessons learned from automatic speech recognition. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[42]  P. J. B. Slater,et al.  Bird Song: Contents , 2008 .

[43]  Erin M. Bayne,et al.  Autonomous recording units in avian ecological research: current use and future applications , 2017 .

[44]  David L. Borchers,et al.  Distance sampling , 2001 .

[45]  W. Youden,et al.  Index for rating diagnostic tests , 1950, Cancer.

[46]  Michael Mahony,et al.  If a frog calls in the forest: Bioacoustic monitoring reveals the breeding phenology of the endangered Richmond Range mountain frog (Philoria richmondensis) , 2015 .

[47]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations , 1995 .

[48]  Andrew K. Skidmore,et al.  Where is positional uncertainty a problem for species distribution modelling , 2014 .

[49]  J. Tobias,et al.  Ecological drivers of song evolution in birds: Disentangling the effects of habitat and morphology , 2018, Ecology and evolution.

[50]  Jennifer R. Foote,et al.  Comparison of autonomous and manual recording methods for discrimination of individually distinctive Ovenbird songs , 2015 .

[51]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[52]  Thierry Aubin,et al.  Screening large audio datasets to determine the time and space distribution of Screaming Piha birds in a tropical forest , 2016, Ecol. Informatics.

[53]  P. Sólymos,et al.  Experimentally derived detection distances from audio recordings and human observers enable integrated analysis of point count data , 2017 .

[54]  Jeff Houlahan,et al.  Designing better frog call recognition models , 2017, Ecology and evolution.

[55]  L. Venier,et al.  Using automated sound recording and analysis to detect bird species‐at‐risk in southwestern Ontario woodlands , 2014 .