Cited by 295Music and Audio ProcessingAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorSpeech Recognition and Synthesis

Automatic large-scale classification of bird sounds is strongly improved by unsupervised feature learning

Open access
Stowell, Dan, Plumbley, Mark D.·2014·PeerJ

Abstract

Automatic species classification of birds from their sound is a computational tool of increasing importance in ecology, conservation monitoring and vocal communication studies. To make classification useful in practice, it is crucial to improve its accuracy while ensuring that it can run at big data scales. Many approaches use acoustic measures based on spectrogram-type data, such as the Mel-frequency cepstral coefficient (MFCC) features which represent a manually-designed summary of spectral information. However, recent work in machine learning has demonstrated that features learnt automatically from data can often outperform manually-designed feature transforms. Feature learning can be performed at large scale and "unsupervised", meaning it requires no manual data labelling, yet it can improve performance on "supervised" tasks such as classification. In this work we introduce a technique for feature learning from large volumes of bird sound recordings, inspired by techniques that have proven useful in other domains. We experimentally compare twelve different feature representations derived from the Mel spectrum (of which six use this technique), using four large and diverse databases of bird vocalisations, classified using a random forest classifier. We demonstrate that in our classification tasks, MFCCs can often lead to worse performance than the raw Mel spectral data from which they are derived. Conversely, we demonstrate that unsupervised feature learning provides a substantial boost over MFCCs and Mel spectra without adding computational complexity after the model has been trained. The boost is particularly notable for single-label classification tasks at large scale. The spectro-temporal activations learned through our procedure resemble spectro-temporal receptive fields calculated from avian primary auditory forebrain. However, for one of our datasets, which contains substantial audio data but few annotations, increased performance is not discernible. We study the interaction between dataset characteristics and choice of feature representation through further empirical analysis.

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 · 10.7717/peerj.488

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCCs) became the workhorse representation for animal vocalizations, distilling the spectral envelope of calls into a form that machine-learning algorithms can classify with impressive accuracy.

    “Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCCs) became the workhorse representation for animal vocalizations, distilling the spectral envelope of calls into a form that machine-learning algorithms can classify with impressive accuracy”

    From Listening forward: emerging roles of bioacoustics in ecology, evolution, and conservation (2026) · cites this paper as Stowell and Plumbley 2014

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 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Glotin H LeCun Y Artières T Mallat S Tchernichovski O Halkias X Neural information processing scaled for bioacoustics, from neurons to big data 2013 [Workshop] 979-10-90821-04-0
  2. Stowell D Plumbley MD Feature design for multilabel bird song classification in noise (nips4b challenge) Proceedings of NIPS4b: neural information processing scaled for bioacoustics, from neurons to big data 2013

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stowell, D., & Plumbley, M. D.
Affiliations
Queen Mary University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Stowell, Dan
Venue
PeerJ
Publisher
PeerJ
Published
2014-07-17
Volume
2
Pages
e488
ISSN
2167-8359 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2069943693
Cited by
295
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 3
FWCI
30.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • PeerJ (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/L020505/1, EP/G007144/1)
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
bird species classification, bird vocalizations, unsupervised feature learning, Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients, Mel spectrum, spectrotemporal receptive fields, random forest classification

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