Cited by 80Animal Vocal Communication and BehaviorMusic and Audio ProcessingMusic Technology and Sound Studies

Automated annotation of birdsong with a neural network that segments spectrograms

Open access
Cohen, Yarden, Nicholson, David Aaron, Sanchioni, Alexa, Mallaber, Emily K, Skidanova, Viktoriya, Gardner, Timothy J·2022·eLife

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Songbirds provide a powerful model system for studying sensory-motor learning. However, many analyses of birdsong require time-consuming, manual annotation of its elements, called syllables. Automated methods for annotation have been proposed, but these methods assume that audio can be cleanly segmented into syllables, or they require carefully tuning multiple statistical models. Here, we present TweetyNet: a single neural network model that learns how to segment spectrograms of birdsong into annotated syllables. We show that TweetyNet mitigates limitations of methods that rely on segmented audio. We also show that TweetyNet performs well across multiple individuals from two species of songbirds, Bengalese finches and canaries. Lastly, we demonstrate that using TweetyNet we can accurately annotate very large datasets containing multiple days of song, and that these predicted annotations replicate key findings from behavioral studies. In addition, we provide open-source software to assist other researchers, and a large dataset of annotated canary song that can serve as a benchmark. We conclude that TweetyNet makes it possible to address a wide range of new questions about birdsong.

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 · 10.7554/elife.63853

Cites

8 of 8 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

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

Authors
Cohen, Y., Nicholson, D. A., Sanchioni, A., Mallaber, E. K., Skidanova, V., & Gardner, T. J.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • University of Oregon (US)
Corresponding author
Cohen, Yarden
Venue
eLife
Published
2022-01-20
Volume
11
ISSN
2050-084X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4205665640
Cited by
80
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
FWCI
14.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS104925, R24NS098536, R01NS118424)
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 › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Music Technology and Sound Studies
Keywords
bird song, automatic annotation, Bengalese finch, canaries, sensorimotor learning, open source software
MeSH terms
Animals, Models, Biological, Vocalization, Animal, Neural Networks, Computer, Finches

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