Cited by 58Music and Audio ProcessingUnderwater Acoustics ResearchMarine animal studies overview

Ship Type Classification by Convolutional Neural Networks with Auditory-Like Mechanisms

Open access
Shen, Sheng, Yang, Honghui, Yao, Xiaohui, Li, Junhao, Xu, Guanghui, Sheng, Meiping·2020·Sensors

Abstract

Ship type classification with radiated noise helps monitor the noise of shipping around the hydrophone deployment site. This paper introduces a convolutional neural network with several auditory-like mechanisms for ship type classification. The proposed model mainly includes a cochlea model and an auditory center model. In cochlea model, acoustic signal decomposition at basement membrane is implemented by time convolutional layer with auditory filters and dilated convolutions. The transformation of neural patterns at hair cells is modeled by a time frequency conversion layer to extract auditory features. In the auditory center model, auditory features are first selectively emphasized in a supervised manner. Then, spectro-temporal patterns are extracted by deep architecture with multistage auditory mechanisms. The whole model is optimized with an objective function of ship type classification to form the plasticity of the auditory system. The contributions compared with an auditory inspired convolutional neural network include the improvements in dilated convolutions, deep architecture and target layer. The proposed model can extract auditory features from a raw hydrophone signal and identify types of ships under different working conditions. The model achieved a classification accuracy of 87.2% on four ship types and ocean background noise.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/s20010253

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Shen et al. do not report the exact devices used, the precise period of data collection, or the labelled data used, making it impossible to reproduce the reported results even though the original raw data are freely available.

    “However, Shen et al. [101] do not report the exact devices that were used, the precise period of data collection, or the labelled data used. Therefore, even though the original raw data are freely available, it is impossible to reproduce the results reported in that work.”

    From A Survey of Underwater Acoustic Data Classification Methods Using Deep Learning for Shoreline Surveillance (2022) · cites this paper as [101]

    Section 4.1 (Experimental Dataset; page unavailable) directly contradicts the claim that Shen et al. did not report the exact device: it identifies an Ocean Sonics icListen AF hydrophone. It gives a 29-month collection duration and ship-type categories, but not precise calendar dates or the labels for individual recordings. Our copy does not establish that the raw data are freely available or that reproduction is impossible. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The auditory-inspired CNN had a high accuracy (87.2%), outperforming a standard CNN (83.2%), a stack of autoencoders (81.4%), wavelet transform with PCA (74.6%), and a support-vector machine (68.2%).

    “The results showed that the proposed auditory-inspired CNN had a high accuracy (87.2%), outperforming a standard CNN (83.2%), a stack of autoencoders [113] (81.4%) and various traditional object recognition algorithms, such as a combination of wavelet transform with PCA [114] (74.6%) and a support-vector machine [115] (68.2%).”

    From A Survey of Underwater Acoustic Data Classification Methods Using Deep Learning for Shoreline Surveillance (2022) · cites this paper as [101]

    Section 4.2 (page unavailable) says the proposed model outperformed manually designed features and improved on a previous auditory-inspired CNN. Our copy does not substantiate the five quoted accuracy figures or the claimed ranking against a standard CNN, stacked autoencoders, wavelet transform with PCA, and an SVM. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [22]Den Oord A.V. Dieleman S. Zen H. Simonyan K. Vinyals O. Graves A. Kalchbrenner N. Senior A.W. Kavukcuoglu K. WaveNet: A Generative Model for Raw Audio arXiv 2016 1609.03499
  2. [23]Lin M. Chen Q. Yan S. Network In Network Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations Banff, AB, Canada 14–16 April 2014
  3. [26]Gazzaniga M. Ivry R.B. Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind: Fourth International Student Edition WW Norton New York, NY, USA 2013

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shen, S., Yang, H., Yao, X., Li, J., Xu, G., & Sheng, M.
Affiliations
Northwestern Polytechnical University (CN)
Corresponding author
Yang, Honghui
Venue
Sensors
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-01-01
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
253
ISSN
1424-8220 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2997819422
Cited by
57
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9
FWCI
4.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sensors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Music and Audio Processing
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Underwater Acoustics Research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Marine animal studies overview
Keywords
ship classification, radiated noise, auditory filters, dilated convolution, time-frequency features, underwater acoustic signal processing

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