Cited by 42Animal Vocal Communication and BehaviorMusic and Audio ProcessingSpeech Recognition and Synthesis

A comparative study in birds: Call-type-independent species and individual recognition using four machine-learning methods and two acoustic features

Cheng, Jinkui, Xie, Bengui, Lin, Congtian, Ji, Liqiang·2012·Bioacoustics

Abstract

Species- and individual-specific animal calls can be used in identification as verified in playback experiments and analyses of features extracted from these signals. The use of machine-learning methods and acoustic features borrowed from human speech recognition to identify animals at the species and individual level has increased recently. To date there have been few studies comparing the performances of these methods and features used for call-type-independent species and individual identification. We compared the performance of four machine-learning classifiers in the identification of ten passerine species, and individual identification for three passerines using two acoustic features. The methods did not require us to pre-categorize the component syllables in call-type-independent species and individual identification systems. The results of our experiment indicated that support vector machines (SVM) performed best generally, regardless of which acoustic feature was used, linear predictive coefficients (LPCs) increased the recognition accuracies of hidden Markov models (HMM) greatly, and the most appropriate classifiers for LPCs and Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCCs) were HMM and SVM respectively. This study will assist researchers in selecting classifiers and features to use in future species and individual recognition studies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09524622.2012.669664

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Finer scale discriminations are possible at both the individual level and the bird song elements level.

    “Finer scale discriminations are possible at both the individual level (Cheng, Xie, Lin, & Ji, 2012) and the bird song elements level (Ranjard & Ross, 2008).”

    From Applications of machine learning in animal behaviour studies (2017) · cites this paper as Cheng et al., 2012

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cheng, J., Xie, B., Lin, C., & Ji, L.
Affiliations
Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
Corresponding author
Ji, Liqiang
Venue
Bioacoustics
Published
2012-06
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
157-171
ISSN
  • 0952-4622 (ISSN-L)
  • 2165-0586
OpenAlex
W2065265481
Cited by
42
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4
FWCI
1.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Bioacoustics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology › Animal Vocal Communication and Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Music and Audio Processing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech Recognition and Synthesis
Keywords
bird vocalizations, species identification, individual recognition, Passeriformes, machine learning classifiers, support vector machine, hidden Markov models, linear prediction coefficients, Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients, acoustic features, classifier comparison

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review