Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28403159›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Improved supervised classification of accelerometry data to distinguish behaviors of soaring birds.

Maitreyi Sur, Tony Suffredini, Stephen M Wessells, Peter H Bloom, Michael Lanzone, Sheldon Blackshire, Srisarguru Sridhar, Todd Katzner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Turbulence explains the accelerations of an eagle in natural flight.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Behaviour Classification on Giraffes (Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Maitreyi SurDepartment of Biological Sciences, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7174-1813
Tony SuffrediniSky Patrol Abatement, Simi Valley, California, United States of America.
Stephen M WessellsU.S. Geological Survey Henderson, Henderson, Nevada, United States of America.
Peter H BloomBloom Biological, Santa Ana, California, United States of America.
Michael LanzoneCellular Tracking Technologies, Rio Grande, New Jersey, United States of America.
Sheldon BlackshireCellular Tracking Technologies, Rio Grande, New Jersey, United States of America.
Srisarguru SridharDepartment of Computer Science, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho, United States of America.
Todd KatznerU.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Boise, Idaho, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Soaring birds can balance the energetic costs of movement by switching between flapping, soaring and gliding flight. Accelerometers can allow quantification of flight behavior and thus a context to interpret these energetic costs. However, models to interpret accelerometry data are still being developed, rarely trained with supervised datasets, and difficult to apply. We collected accelerometry data at 140Hz from a trained golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) whose flight we recorded with video that we used to characterize behavior. We applied two forms of supervised classifications, random forest (RF) models and K-nearest neighbor (KNN) models. The KNN model was substantially easier to implement than the RF approach but both were highly accurate in classifying basic behaviors such as flapping (85.5% and 83.6% accurate, respectively), soaring (92.8% and 87.6%) and sitting (84.1% and 88.9%) with overall accuracies of 86.6% and 92.3% respectively. More detailed classification schemes, with specific behaviors such as banking and straight flights were well classified only by the KNN model (91.24% accurate; RF = 61.64% accurate). The RF model maintained its accuracy of classifying basic behavior classification accuracy of basic behaviors at sampling frequencies as low as 10Hz, the KNN at sampling frequencies as low as 20Hz. Classification of accelerometer data collected from free ranging birds demonstrated a strong dependence of predicted behavior on the type of classification model used. Our analyses demonstrate the consequence of different approaches to classification of accelerometry data, the potential to optimize classification algorithms with validated flight behaviors to improve classification accuracy, ideal sampling frequencies for different classification algorithms, and a number of ways to improve commonly used analytical techniques and best practices for classification of accelerometry data.

Indexed as

EaglesFlight, AnimalAccelerometryAlgorithmsAnimalsBehavior, AnimalMachine LearningModels, BiologicalModels, StatisticalVideo Recording

Identifiers

PMID28403159
PMCPMC5389810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.