ArticlePloS one2024
Buzzfindr: Automating the detection of feeding buzzes in bat echolocation recordings.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Expression of Concern: Buzzfindr: Automating the detection of feeding buzzes in bat echolocation recordings.PloS one · 2026Article
- The Bat Signal: An Ultraviolet Light Lure to Increase Acoustic Detection of Bats.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Expression of concern
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantification of bat communities and habitat heavily rely on non-invasive acoustic bat surveys the scope of which has greatly amplified with advances in remote monitoring technologies. Despite the unprecedented amount of acoustic data being collected, analysis of these data is often limited to simple species classification which provides little information on habitat function. Feeding buzzes, the rapid sequences of echolocation pulses emitted by bats during the terminal phase of prey capture, have historically been used to evaluate foraging habitat quality. Automated identification of feeding buzzes in recordings could benefit conservation by helping identify critical foraging habitat. I tested if detection of feeding buzzes in recordings could be automated with bat recordings from Ontario, Canada. Data were obtained using three different recording devices. The signal detection method involved sequentially scanning narrow frequency bands with the "Bioacoustics" R package signal detection algorithm, and extracting temporal and signal strength parameters from detections. Buzzes were best characterized by the standard deviation of the time between consecutive pulses, the average pulse duration, and the average pulse signal-to-noise ratio. Classification accuracy was highest with artificial neural networks and random forest algorithms. I compared each model's receiver operating characteristic curves and random forest provided better control over the false-positive rate so it was retained as the final model. When tested on a new dataset, buzzfindr's overall accuracy was 93.4% (95% CI: 91.5%- 94.9%). Overall accuracy was not affected by recording device type or species frequency group. Automated detection of feeding buzzes will facilitate their integration in the analytical workflow of acoustic bat studies to improve inferences on habitat use and quality.
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.