Cited by 57Music and Audio ProcessingAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorSpeech Recognition and Synthesis

Pre-processing spectrogram parameters improve the accuracy of bioacoustic classification using convolutional neural networks

Open access
Knight, Elly C., Poo Hernandez, Sergio, Bayne, Erin M., Bulitko, Vadim, Tucker, Benjamin V.·2020·Bioacoustics

Abstract

A variety of automated classification approaches have been developed to extract species detection information from large bioacoustic datasets. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are an image classification technique that can be operated on the spectrogram of an audio recording. Using CNNs for bioacoustic classification negates the need for sophisticated feature extraction techniques; however, CNNs may be sensitive to the parameters used to create spectrograms. We used AlexNet to classify spectrograms of audio clips from 19 species of birdsong. We trained and tested AlexNet with the spectrograms and observed that mean classification accuracy ranged from 88.9% to 96.9% depending on the parameters used to create the spectrogram. Classification accuracy was highest when we used a composite of four spectrograms with different combinations of scales for frequency and amplitude. Classification accuracy also varied depending on the FFT window size of the spectrogram. Overall, our results suggest that optimal spectrogram parameters for CNN classification may differ from those used for human visualization or other classification approaches. We suggest that if spectrogram parameters are appropriately selected, classification accuracy similar to current state-of-the-art methods can be achieved using off-the-shelf software and without the need to extract domain-specific features.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09524622.2019.1606734

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 32 · Cited by 57

Authors
Knight, E. C., Poo Hernandez, S., Bayne, E. M., Bulitko, V., & Tucker, B. V.
Affiliations
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • Department of Computing Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Corresponding author
Knight, Elly C.
Venue
Bioacoustics
Published
2019-04-30
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
337-355
ISSN
  • 0952-4622 (ISSN-L)
  • 2165-0586
OpenAlex
W2942893872
Cited by
57
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3
FWCI
3.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioacoustics (publishedVersion)
  • ERA: Education and Research Archive (University of Alberta)
Funders
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  • Alberta Conservation Association
  • Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Music and Audio Processing
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology › Animal Vocal Communication and Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech Recognition and Synthesis
Keywords
bioacoustic classification, convolutional neural networks, AlexNet, bird song, species detection, automated species identification

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