ArticlePLoS computational biology2022
Capturing the songs of mice with an improved detection and classification method for ultrasonic vocalizations (BootSnap).
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- A deep neural network for automatic prediction of mouse behavior from ultrasonic vocalizations emitted during social interaction test.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Courtship vocalizations of male mice do not always attract females.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Hidden in plain sound: the scientific potential of house mouse squeaks.Biology letters · 2025Review
- Pre- and post-copulatory traits are affected by experimental inbreeding, but they are not correlated.BMC biology · 2025Article
- Attraction of female house mice to male ultrasonic courtship vocalizations depends on their social experience and estrous stage.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
House mice communicate through ultrasonic vocalizations (USVs), which are above the range of human hearing (>20 kHz), and several automated methods have been developed for USV detection and classification. Here we evaluate their advantages and disadvantages in a full, systematic comparison, while also presenting a new approach. This study aims to 1) determine the most efficient USV detection tool among the existing methods, and 2) develop a classification model that is more generalizable than existing methods. In both cases, we aim to minimize the user intervention required for processing new data. We compared the performance of four detection methods in an out-of-the-box approach, pretrained DeepSqueak detector, MUPET, USVSEG, and the Automatic Mouse Ultrasound Detector (A-MUD). We also compared these methods to human visual or 'manual' classification (ground truth) after assessing its reliability. A-MUD and USVSEG outperformed the other methods in terms of true positive rates using default and adjusted settings, respectively, and A-MUD outperformed USVSEG when false detection rates were also considered. For automating the classification of USVs, we developed BootSnap for supervised classification, which combines bootstrapping on Gammatone Spectrograms and Convolutional Neural Networks algorithms with Snapshot ensemble learning. It successfully classified calls into 12 types, including a new class of false positives that is useful for detection refinement. BootSnap outperformed the pretrained and retrained state-of-the-art tool, and thus it is more generalizable. BootSnap is freely available for scientific use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.