Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35891075›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Understanding External Influences on Target Detection and Classification Using Camera Trap Images and Machine Learning.

Sally O A Westworth, Carl Chalmers, Paul Fergus, Steven N Longmore, Alex K Piel, Serge A Wich

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sally O A WestworthSchool of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1711-6590
Carl ChalmersSchool of Computer Science and Mathematics, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0822-1150
Paul FergusSchool of Computer Science and Mathematics, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7070-4447
Steven N LongmoreAstrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6353-0170
Alex K PielDepartment of Anthropology, University College London, Taviton Street, London WC1H OBW, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4674-537X
Serge A WichSchool of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3954-5174
Liverpool John Moores University · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Using machine learning (ML) to automate camera trap (CT) image processing is advantageous for time-sensitive applications. However, little is currently known about the factors influencing such processing. Here, we evaluate the influence of occlusion, distance, vegetation type, size class, height, subject orientation towards the CT, species, time-of-day, colour, and analyst performance on wildlife/human detection and classification in CT images from western Tanzania. Additionally, we compared the detection and classification performance of analyst and ML approaches. We obtained wildlife data through pre-existing CT images and human data using voluntary participants for CT experiments. We evaluated the analyst and ML approaches at the detection and classification level. Factors such as distance and occlusion, coupled with increased vegetation density, present the most significant effect on DP and CC. Overall, the results indicate a significantly higher detection probability (DP), 81.1%, and correct classification (CC) of 76.6% for the analyst approach when compared to ML which detected 41.1% and classified 47.5% of wildlife within CT images. However, both methods presented similar probabilities for daylight CT images, 69.4% (ML) and 71.8% (analysts), and dusk CT images, 17.6% (ML) and 16.2% (analysts), when detecting humans. Given that users carefully follow provided recommendations, we expect DP and CC to increase. In turn, the ML approach to CT image processing would be an excellent provision to support time-sensitive threat monitoring for biodiversity conservation.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedMachine LearningAnimalsAnimals, WildBiodiversityHumansautomationbiodiversity conservationcitizen scientistspoacherwildlife

Identifiers

PMID35891075
PMCPMC9319727
OpenAlexW4286214452

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.