首页> 外文期刊>Bioacoustics: The International Journal of Animal Sound and its Recording >An evaluation of manual and automated methods for detecting sounds of maned wolves (Chrysocyon brachyurus Illiger 1815)
【24h】

An evaluation of manual and automated methods for detecting sounds of maned wolves (Chrysocyon brachyurus Illiger 1815)

机译:评价手动和自动方法来检测鬃狼的声音(Chrysocyon brachyurus Illiger 1815)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Although bioacoustics is increasingly used to study species and environments for their monitoring and conservation, detecting calls produced by species of interest is prohibitively time consuming when done manually. Here we compared four methods for detecting and identifying roar-barks of maned wolves (Chrysocyon brachyurus) within long sound recordings: (1) a manual method, (2) an automated detector method using Raven Pro 1.4, (3) an automated detector method using XBAT and (4) a mixed method using XBAT's detector followed by manual verification. Recordings were done using a song meter installed at the Serra da Canastra National Park (Minas Gerais, Brazil). For each method we evaluated the following variables in a 24-h recording: (1) total time required analysing files, (2) number of false positives identified and (3) number of true positives identified compared to total number of target sounds. Automated methods required less time to analyse the recordings (77-93min) when compared to manual method (189min), but consistently presented more false positives and were less efficient in identifying true positives (manual=91.89%, Raven=32.43% and XBAT=84.86%). Adding a manual verification after XBAT detection dramatically increased efficiency in identifying target sounds (XBAT+manual=100% true positives). Manual verification of XBAT detections seems to be the best way out of the proposed methods to collect target sound data for studies where large amounts of audio data need to be analysed in a reasonable time (111min, 58.73% of the time required to find calls manually).
机译:尽管生物声学越来越多地用于研究物种和环境以进行监视和保护,但是手动检测感兴趣的物种产生的呼叫非常耗时。在这里,我们比较了在长时间录音中用于检测和识别鬃狼咆哮吠声的四种方法:(1)手动方法,(2)使用Raven Pro 1.4的自动检测器方法,(3)自动检测器方法(4)使用XBAT检测器的混合方法,然后进行手动验证。使用安装在塞拉达卡纳斯特拉国家公园(巴西米纳斯吉拉斯州)的计米器进行录音。对于每种方法,我们在24小时录音中评估了以下变量:(1)分析文件所需的总时间,(2)与目标声音的总数相比,识别出的误报数,以及(3)识别出的正值数。与手动方法(189分钟)相比,自动方法需要较少的时间来分析记录(77-93分钟),但是始终呈现出更多的误报,并且识别真实阳性的效率较低(手动= 91.89%,Raven = 32.43%和XBAT = 84.86%)。在检测到XBAT之后添加手动验证,大大提高了识别目标声音的效率(XBAT + manual = 100%真实肯定)。手动验证XBAT检测似乎是建议的收集目标声音数据的方法的最佳方法,该方法用于在合理时间内(111分钟,占手动查找呼叫所需时间的58.73%)分析大量音频数据的研究)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号