Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35551265›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2022

Capturing the songs of mice with an improved detection and classification method for ultrasonic vocalizations (BootSnap).

Reyhaneh Abbasi, Peter Balazs, Maria Adelaide Marconi, Doris Nicolakis, Sarah M Zala, Dustin J Penn

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Reyhaneh AbbasiAcoustic Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-8423-6672
Peter BalazsAcoustic Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-4939-0831
Maria Adelaide MarconiKonrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology, Department of Interdisciplinary Life Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-3429-7415
Doris NicolakisKonrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology, Department of Interdisciplinary Life Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-0478-4995
Sarah M ZalaKonrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology, Department of Interdisciplinary Life Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-0698-5299
Dustin J PennKonrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology, Department of Interdisciplinary Life Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna · ATAustrian Academy of Sciences · ATUniversity of Vienna · AT

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 28141
6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsVocalization, AnimalAnimalsMiceNeural Networks, ComputerReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID35551265
PMCPMC9098080
OpenAlexW4280550796

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.