Animal Cognition

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 389–400 | Cite as

Classification of dog barks: a machine learning approach

  • Csaba Molnár
  • Frédéric Kaplan
  • Pierre Roy
  • François Pachet
  • Péter Pongrácz
  • Antal Dóka
  • Ádám Miklósi
Original Paper

Abstract

In this study we analyzed the possible context-specific and individual-specific features of dog barks using a new machine-learning algorithm. A pool containing more than 6,000 barks, which were recorded in six different communicative situations was used as the sound sample. The algorithm’s task was to learn which acoustic features of the barks, which were recorded in different contexts and from different individuals, could be distinguished from another. The program conducted this task by analyzing barks emitted in previously identified contexts by identified dogs. After the best feature set had been obtained (with which the highest identification rate was achieved), the efficiency of the algorithm was tested in a classification task in which unknown barks were analyzed. The recognition rates we found were highly above chance level: the algorithm could categorize the barks according to their recorded situation with an efficiency of 43% and with an efficiency of 52% of the barking individuals. These findings suggest that dog barks have context-specific and individual-specific acoustic features. In our opinion, this machine learning method may provide an efficient tool for analyzing acoustic data in various behavioral studies.

Keywords

Acoustic communication Dog barks Machine learning Genetic programming 

References

  1. Au WW (1994) Comparison of sonar discrimination: dolphin and an artificial neural network. J Acoust Soc Am 95:2728–2735PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Au WW, Andersen LN, Rasmussen R, Roitblat HL, Nachtigall PE (1995) Neural network modeling of a dolphin’s sonar discrimination capabilities. J Acoust Soc Am 98:43–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergeron BP (2003) Bioinformatics computing. Prentice-Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bogacz R, Brown MW (2003) Comparison of computational models of familiarity discrimination in the perirhinal cortex. Hippocampus 13:494–524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burghardt T, Calic J (2006) Analysing animal behaviour in wildlife videos using face detection and tracking. IEEE, NY, Proc Vis Image Signal Process 153:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burghardt T, Thomas B, Barham PJ, Calic J (2004) Automated visual recognition of individual African penguins. In: Proceedings of Fifth International Penguin Conference, Ushuaia, September 2004Google Scholar
  7. Cabral G, Pachet F, Briot J-P (2005) Automatic X traditional descriptor extraction: The case of chord recognition. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on music information retrieval (ISMIR’2005), London, September 2005Google Scholar
  8. Calic J, Campbell N, Calway A, Mirmehdi M, Burghardt T, Hannuna S, Kong C (2005) Towards intelligent content based retrieval of wildlife videos. In: Proceedings of the Sixth WIAMIS, Montreux, April 2005Google Scholar
  9. Cohen JA, Fox MW (1976) Vocalizations in wild canids and possible effects of domestication. Behav Processes 1:77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Defréville B, Roy P, Rosin C, Pachet F (2006) Automatic recognition of urban sound sources. In: Proceedings of the 120th AES Conference, AthensGoogle Scholar
  11. Feddersen-Petersen DU (2000) Vocalization of European wolves (Canis lupus lupus L.) and various dog breeds (Canis lupus f. fam.). Arch Tierz Dummerstorf 43:387–397Google Scholar
  12. Fielding AH (1999) Machine learning methods for ecological applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Fitch WT, Neubauer J, Herzel H (2002) Calls out of chaos. The adaptive significance of nonlinear phenomena in mammalian vocal production. Anim Behav 63:407–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frommolt K-H, Goltsman ME, MacDonald DW (2003) Barking foxes, Alopex lagopus: field experiments in individual recognition in a territorial mammal. Anim Behav 65:509–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerhardt HC (1992) Multiple messages in acoustic signals. Semin Neurosci 4:391–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hatzivassiloglou V, Duboué PA, Rzhetsky A (2001) Disambiguating proteins, genes, and RNA in text: a machine learning approach. Bioinformatics 17(Suppl. 1):97–106Google Scholar
  17. Hauser MD (1996) The evolution of communication. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Holekamp KE, Boydston EE, Szykman M, Graham I, Nutt KJ, Birch S, Piskiel A, Singh M (1999) Vocal recognition in the spotted hyena and its possible implications regarding the evolution of intelligence. Anim Behav 58:383–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. King RD, Hirst JD, Sternberg MJE (1993) New approaches to QSAR: neural networks and machine learning. Perspect Drug Discov Des 1:279–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. King RD, Muggleton S, Lewis RA, Sternberg MJE (1992) Drug design by machine learning: the use of inductive logic programming to model the structure-activity relationships of trimethoprim analogues binding to dihydrofolate reductase. PNAS 89:11322–11326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. King RD, Sternberg MJE (1990) Machine learning approach for the prediction of protein secondary structure. J Mol Biol 216:441–457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kohavi R, Sommerfield D (1995) Feature subset selection using the wrapper method: Overfitting and dynamic search space topology, First International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD-95), MontrealGoogle Scholar
  23. Koza J (1992) Genetic Programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Kremliovsky M, Kadtke J, Inchiosa M, Moore P (1998) Characterization of dolphin acoustic echo-location data using a dynamical classification method. Int J Bifurcat Chaos 8:813–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Manser MB, Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL (2002) Suricate alarm calls signal predator class and urgency. Trends Cogn Sci 6:55–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mitchell TM (2005) Using machine learning and cognitive modeling to understand the fMRI measured brain activation underlying the representations of words and sentences. In: Proceedings of collaborative research computational neuroscience workshop, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  27. Molnár Cs, Pongrácz P, Dóka A, Miklósi Á (2006) Can humans discriminate between dogs on the base of the acoustic parameters of barks? Behav Processes 73:76–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Monceaux J, Pachet F, Amadu F, Roy P, Aymeric Z (2005) Descriptor-based spatialization. In: Proceedings of AES conference 2005, AthensGoogle Scholar
  29. Morton ES (1977) On the occurrence and significance of motivation-structural rules in some bird and mammal sounds. Am Nat 111:855–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Muggleton S, King RD, Sternberg MJE (1992) Protein secondary structure prediction using logic. Protein Eng 5:647–657PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Owren MJ, Rendall D (2003) Salience of caller identity in rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta) coos and screams: perceptual experiments with human (Homo sapiens) listeners. J Comp Psychol 117:380–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Obach M, Wagner R, Werner H, Schmidt H-H (2001) Modeling population dynamics of aquatic insects with artificial neural networks. Ecol Modell 146:207–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pachet F, Zils A (2004) Automatic extraction of music descriptors from acoustic signals. In: Proceedings of ISMIR 2004, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  34. Pachet F, Roy P (2007) Exploring billions of audio features. In: Proceedings of CBMI (Content-Based Multimedia Indexing), Bordeaux, FranceGoogle Scholar
  35. Pongrácz P, Molnár Cs, Miklósi Á, Csányi V (2005) Human listeners are able to classify dog barks recorded in different situations. J Comp Psychol 119:136–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pongrácz P, Molnár Cs, Miklósi Á, Csányi V (2006) Human understanding of dog barks: why we did not know what we knew all along? Appl Anim Behav Sci 100:228–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Recknagel F (2001) Applications of machine learning to Ecol Model. Ecol Modell 146:303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schassburger RM (1993) Vocal communication in the timber wolf, Canis lupus, Linnaeus. Advances in ethology (No. 30). Paul Parey Publishers, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  39. Schleiter IM, Obach M, Borchardt D, Werner H (2001) Bioindication of chemical and hydromorphological habitat characteristics with benthic macro-invertebrates based on artificial neural networks. Aquatic Ecol 35:147–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL, Marler P (1980) Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: evidence of predator classification and semantic communication. Science 210:801–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Slobodchikoff CN, Kiriazis J, Fischer C, Creef E (1991) Semantic information distinguishing individual predators in the alarm calls of Gunnison’s prairie dogs. Anim Behav 42:713–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stockwell DRB (2006) Improving ecological niche models by data mining large environmental datasets for surrogate models. Ecol Modell 192:188–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tembrock G (1976) Canid vocalizations. Behav Processes 1:57–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Witten I, Eibe F (1999) Data Mining, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  45. Yin S (2002) A new perspective on barking in dogs (Canis familiaris). J Comp Psychol 119:189–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yin S, McCowan B (2004) Barking in domestic dogs: context specificity and individual identification. Anim Behav 68:343–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhang L, Samaras D, Klein N, Tomasi D, Cottone L, Leskovjan A, Volkow N, Goldstein R (2005a) Exploiting temporal information in functional magnetic resonance imaging brain data, In: Proceedings of MICCAI, Palm Springs, pp 679–687Google Scholar
  48. Zhang L, Samaras D, Tomasi D, Volkow N, Goldstein R (2005b) Machine Learning for clinical diagnosis from functional magnetic resonance imaging. In: IEEE proceedings of CVPR, San Diego, pp 1211–1217Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Csaba Molnár
    • 1
  • Frédéric Kaplan
    • 2
  • Pierre Roy
    • 3
  • François Pachet
    • 3
  • Péter Pongrácz
    • 1
  • Antal Dóka
    • 1
  • Ádám Miklósi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EthologyEötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, CRAFTLausanneSwitzerland
  3. 3.Sony Computer Science Laboratory, ParisParisFrance

Personalised recommendations