2013 IEEE 9th International Conference on E-Science 2013
DOI: 10.1109/escience.2013.25
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Rapid Scanning of Spectrograms for Efficient Identification of Bioacoustic Events in Big Data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is achieved by disabling audio playback, and flashing successive spectrograms past participants at high speeds. We have achieved as much as 12x speedup for time taken to identify a species in a section of audio [7].…”
Section: Semi-automated Approachmentioning
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This is achieved by disabling audio playback, and flashing successive spectrograms past participants at high speeds. We have achieved as much as 12x speedup for time taken to identify a species in a section of audio [7].…”
Section: Semi-automated Approachmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…The majority of our call recognition algorithms employ features derived from spectrograms [5,7]. The signal is framed using a window of 512 samples (23.2ms) which offers a reasonable compromise between time and frequency resolution.…”
Section: Automated Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The detection of the species in the audio recordings followed two steps: (1) First author (MCC) listened to all recordings from 05:30 to 10:00 hr, and then, one recording every hour (e.g., 11:00, 12:00, 13:00 hr) until 18:00 hr on the first survey day for each sampling site ( n = 35, 1‐min recordings/site) for a total of 2,100 validated recordings, and (2) with a preliminary bird list from the first survey day from each site, MCC visually scanned all spectrograms of recordings (Campos‐Cerqueira & Aide, ; Truskinger, Cottman‐Fields, Johnson, & Roe, ), from 05:30 to 18:00 hr for all subsequent days, thus an additional approximately 41,000 1 min recordings were evaluated. During this process, MCC listened to every recording that included a previously unidentified vocalization for the site.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We deliberately discarded dusk and dawn choruses, at 05:00 and 06:00 h and at 17:00 and 18:00 h, because of the dominance of overlapping bird sounds. We simultaneously listened and visualized the selected recordings using a spectrogram generated with Audacity (non-overlapping 1024 sample Blackman-Harris window), for a more accurate discrimination of call overlaps (Truskinger et al 2013). First, we classified calls-defined here as a distinct acoustic production-in four main acoustic groups as follow: birds, crickets, katydids and others (cicadas, anurans, cats and bats).…”
Section: Calling Identification and Countmentioning
confidence: 99%