ArticlePeerJ2024
Semiautomated generation of species-specific training data from large, unlabeled acoustic datasets for deep supervised birdsong isolation.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- AI-Powered Vocalization Analysis in Poultry: Systematic Review of Health, Behavior, and Welfare Monitoring.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Decoding Poultry Welfare from Sound-A Machine Learning Framework for Non-Invasive Acoustic Monitoring.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bioacoustic monitoring is an effective and minimally invasive method to study wildlife ecology. However, even the state-of-the-art techniques for analyzing birdsongs decrease in accuracy in the presence of extraneous signals such as anthropogenic noise and vocalizations of non-target species. Deep supervised source separation (DSSS) algorithms have been shown to effectively separate mixtures of animal vocalizations. However, in practice, recording sites also have site-specific variations and unique background audio that need to be removed, warranting the need for site-specific data. Methods: Here, we test the potential of training DSSS models on site-specific bird vocalizations and background audio. We used a semiautomated workflow using deep supervised classification and statistical cleaning to label and generate a site-specific source separation dataset by mixing birdsongs and background audio segments. Then, we trained a deep supervised source separation (DSSS) model with this generated dataset. Because most data is passively-recorded and consequently noisy, the true isolated birdsongs are unavailable which makes evaluation challenging. Therefore, in addition to using traditional source separation (SS) metrics, we also show the effectiveness of our site-specific approach using metrics commonly used in ornithological analyses such as automated feature labeling and species-specific trilateration accuracy. Results: Our approach of training on site-specific data boosts the source-to-distortion, source-to-interference, and source-to-artifact ratios (SDR, SIR, and SAR) by 9.33 dB, 24.07 dB, and 3.60 dB respectively. We also find our approach allows for automated feature labeling with single-digit mean absolute percent error and birdsong trilateration accuracy with a mean simulated trilateration error of 2.58 m. Conclusion: Overall, we show that site-specific DSSS is a promising upstream solution for wildlife audio analysis tools that break down in the presence of background noise. By training on site-specific data, our method is robust to unique, site-specific interference that caused previous methods to fail.
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.