Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 405–421 | Cite as

Comparing supervised learning methods for classifying sex, age, context and individual Mudi dogs from barking

  • Ana Larrañaga
  • Concha Bielza
  • Péter Pongrácz
  • Tamás Faragó
  • Anna Bálint
  • Pedro Larrañaga
Original Paper

Abstract

Barking is perhaps the most characteristic form of vocalization in dogs; however, very little is known about its role in the intraspecific communication of this species. Besides the obvious need for ethological research, both in the field and in the laboratory, the possible information content of barks can also be explored by computerized acoustic analyses. This study compares four different supervised learning methods (naive Bayes, classification trees, \(k\)-nearest neighbors and logistic regression) combined with three strategies for selecting variables (all variables, filter and wrapper feature subset selections) to classify Mudi dogs by sex, age, context and individual from their barks. The classification accuracy of the models obtained was estimated by means of \(K\)-fold cross-validation. Percentages of correct classifications were 85.13 % for determining sex, 80.25 % for predicting age (recodified as young, adult and old), 55.50 % for classifying contexts (seven situations) and 67.63 % for recognizing individuals (8 dogs), so the results are encouraging. The best-performing method was \(k\)-nearest neighbors following a wrapper feature selection approach. The results for classifying contexts and recognizing individual dogs were better with this method than they were for other approaches reported in the specialized literature. This is the first time that the sex and age of domestic dogs have been predicted with the help of sound analysis. This study shows that dog barks carry ample information regarding the caller’s indexical features. Our computerized analysis provides indirect proof that barks may serve as an important source of information for dogs as well.

Keywords

Mudi dog barks Acoustic communication Feature subset selection Machine learning Supervised classification \(K\)-fold cross-validation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, projects Cajal Blue Brain (C080020-09; the Spanish partner of the Blue Brain Project initiative from EPFL) and TIN2013-41592-P, by the János Bolyai Research Scholarship from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and co-financed by a grant from OTKA K82020. The authors are thankful to Celeste R. Pongrácz for the English proofreading of this manuscript and to Nikolett Czinege for help in preparing the bark databases.

Supplementary material

10071_2014_811_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (43 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 42 KB)

References

  1. Acevedo M, Corrada-Bravo C, Corrada-Bravo H, Villanueva-Rivera L, Aide T (2009) Automated classification of bird and amphibian calls using machine learning: a comparison of methods. Ecol Inform 4(4):206–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adachi I, Kuwahata H, Fujita K (2007) Dogs recall their owner’s face upon hearing the owner’s voice. Anim Cogn 10:17–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adams M, Law B, Gibson M (2010) Reliable automation of bat call identification for Eastern New South Wales, Australia, using classification trees and AnaScheme software. Acta Chiropterol 12(1):231–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armitage D, Ober H (2010) A comparison of supervised learning techniques in the classification of bat echolocation calls. Ecol Inform 5(6):465–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Au W, Andersen L, Roitblat ARH, Nachtigall P (1995) Neural network modeling of a dolphin’s sonar discrimination capabilities. J Acoust Soc Am 98:43–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bálint A, Faragó T, Dóka A, Miklósi A, Pongrácz P (2013) “Beware, I am big and non-dangerous!”—playfully growling dogs are perceived larger than their actual size by their canine audience. Appl Anim Behav Sci 148:128–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bielza C, Li G, Larrañaga P (2011) Multi-dimensional classification with Bayesian networks. Int J Approx Reason 52:705–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blumstein D, Munos O (2005) Individual, age and sex-specific information is contained in yellow-bellied marmot alarm calls. Anim Behav 69(2):353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borchani H, Bielza C, Martínez-Martín P, Larrañaga P (2012) Markov blanket-based approach for learning multi-dimensional Bayesian network classifiers: an application to predict the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) from the 39-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39). J Biomed Inform 45:1175–1184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Britzke E, Duchamp J, Murray K, Swihart R, Robbins L (2011) Acoustic identification of bats in the Eastern United States: a comparison of parametric and nonparametric methods. J Wildl Manage 75(3):660–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charrier I, Aubin T, Mathevon N (2010) Mother-calf vocal communication in Atlantic walrus: a first field experimental study. Anim Cogn 13(3):471–482PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cheng J, Sun Y, Ji L (2010) A call-independent and automatic acoustic system for the individual recognition of animals: a novel model using four passerines. Pattern Recogn 43(11):3846–3852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chesmore E (2001) Application of time domain signal coding and artificial neural networks to passive acoustical identification of animals. Appl Acoust 62(12):1359–1374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clemins P (2005) Automatic Classification of Animal Vocalizations. PhD thesis, Marquete UniversityGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen J, Fox M (1976) Vocalizations in wild canids and possible effects of domestication. Behav Process 1:77–92Google Scholar
  16. Coppinger R, Feinstein M (1991) “Hark! Hark! the dogs bark\(ldots\)” and bark and hark. Smithonian 21:119–128Google Scholar
  17. Druzhkova A, Thalmann O, Trifonov V, Leonard J, Vorobieva N, Ovodov N, ASGraphodatsky, Wayne R (2013) Ancient DNA analysis affirms the canid from Altai as a primitive dog. PLoS ONE 8(e57):754Google Scholar
  18. Duda R, Hart P, Stork D (2001) Pattern classification. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Fant G (1976) Acoustic theory of speech production. Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. Faragó T, Pongrácz P, Miklósi A, Huber L, Virányi Z, Range F (2010a) Dogs’ expectation about signalers’ body size by virtue of their growls. PLoS ONE 5(12):e15,175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Faragó T, Pongrácz P, Range F, Virányi Z, Miklósi A (2010b) The bone is mine’: affective and referential aspects of dog growls. Anim Behav 79(4):917–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Feddersen-Petersen DU (2000) Vocalization of European wolves (Canis lupus lupus l.) and various dog breeds (Canis lupus f. fam.). Arch Tierz Dummerstorf 43(4):387–397Google Scholar
  23. Fix E, Hodges JL (1951) Discriminatory analysis. Nonparametric discrimination: consistency properties. USAF Sch Aviat Med 4:261–279Google Scholar
  24. Frommolt KH, Goltsman M, MacDonald D (2003) Barking foxes, Alopex lagopus: field experiments in individual recognition in a territorial mammal. Anim Behav 65:509–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodwin M, Gooding KM, Regnier F (1979) Sex pheromone in the dog. Science 203:559–561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gunasekaran S, Revathy K (2011) Automatic recognition and retrieval of wild animal vocalizations. Int J Comput Theor Eng 3(1):136–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hall M (1999) Correlation-based feature selection for machine learning. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Waikato, UKGoogle Scholar
  28. Hall M, Frank E, Holmes G, Pfahringer B, Reutemann P, Witten I (2009) The WEKA data mining software: an update. SIGKDD Explor 11(1):10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hartwig S (2005) Individual acoustic identification as a non-invasive conservation tool: an approach to the conservation of the African wild dog Lycaon pictus (Temminck, 1820). Bioacoustics 15:35–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hecht J, Miklósi A, Gácsi M (2012) Behavioral assessment and owner perceptions of behaviors associated with guilt in dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 139:134–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hunag C, Yang Y, Yang D, Chen Y (2009) Frog classification using machine learning techniques. Expert Syst Appl 36(2):3737–3743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jain A, Murty MN, Flynn P (1999) Data clustering: a review. ACM Comput Surv 31(3):264–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Le Cessie S, van Houwelingen JC (1992) Ridge estimators in logistic regression. Appl Stat 41(1):191–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Liu H, Motoda H (1998) Feature selection for knowledge discovery and data mining. Kluwer Academic, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lord K, Feinstein M, Coppinger R (2000) Barking and mobbing. Behav Process 81:358–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Manser M, Seyfarth R, Cheney D (2002) Suricate alarm calls signal predator class and urgency. Trends Cogn Sci 6(2):55–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maros K, Pongrácz P, Bárdos G, Molnár C, Faragó T, Miklósi A (2008) Dogs can discriminate barks from different situations. Appl Anim Behav Sci 114:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mazzini F, Townsend SW, Virányi Z, Range F (2013) Wolf howling is mediated by relationship quality rather than underlying emotional stress. Curr Biol 23:1677–1680PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McConnell PB (1990) Acoustic structure and receiver response in domestic dogs, Canis familiaris. Anim Behav 39:897–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McConnell PB, Baylis JR (1985) Interspecific communication in cooperative herding: acoustic and visual signals from human shepherds and herding dogs. Z Tierpsychol 67:302–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mech LD (1999) Alpha status, dominance and division of labor in wolf packs. Can J Zool 77:1196–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Meints K, Racca A, Hickey N (2010) Child-dog misunderstandings: children misinterpret dogs’ facial expressions. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Canine Science Forum, p 99Google Scholar
  43. Miklósi A, Polgárdi R, Topál J, Csányi V (2000) Intentional behaviour in dog-human communication: an experimental analysis of “showing” behaviour in the dog. Anim Cogn 3:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Minsky M (1961) Steps toward artificial intelligence. T Ins Radio Eng 49:8–30Google Scholar
  45. Molnár C, Pongrácz P, Dóka A, Miklósi A (2006) Can humans discriminate between dogs on the base of the acoustic parameters of barks? Behav Process 73:76–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Molnár C, Kaplan F, Roy P, Pachet F, Pongrácz P, Dóka A, Moklósi A (2008) Classification of dog barks: a machine learning approach. Anim Cogn 11:389–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Molnár C, Pongrácz P, Faragó T, Dóka A, Miklósi A (2009) Dogs discriminate between barks: the effect of context and identity of the caller. Behav Process 82(2):198–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morton E (1977) On the occurrence and significance of motivation—structural rules in some bird and mammal sounds. Am Nat 111:855–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Netto W, Planta D (1997) Behavioural testing for aggression in the domestic dog. Appl Anim Behav Sci 52:243–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Overall K, Dunham A, Frank D (2001) Frequency of nonspecific clinical signs in dogs with separation anxiety, thunderstorm phobia, and noise phobia, alone or in combination. J Am Vet Med Assoc 219:467–473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Parsons S (2001) Identification of New Zeeland bats (Chalinobus tuberculatus and Mystacina tuberculata) in flight from analysis of echolocation calls by artificial neural networks. J Zool 253(4):447–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Parsons S, Jones G (2000) Acoustic identification of twelve species of echolocating bat by discriminant function analysis and artificial neural networks. J Exp Biol 203(17):2641–2656PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Pongrácz P, Molnár C, Miklósi A, Csányi V (2005) Human listeners are able to classify dog (canis familiaris) barks recorded in different situations. J Comp Psychol 119:136–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pongrácz P, Molnár C, Miklósi A (2006) Acoustic parameters of dog barks carry emotional information for humans. Appl Anim Behav Sci 100:228–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pongrácz P, Molnár C, Miklósi A (2010) Barking in family dogs: an ethological approach. Vet J 183:141–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pongrácz P, Szabó E, Kis A, Péter A, Miklósi A (2014) More than noise? Field investigations of intraspecific acoustic communication in dogs (Canis familiaris). Appl Anim Behav Sci (in press)Google Scholar
  57. Quinlan R (1993) C4.5: programs for machine learning. Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  58. Reid P (2009) Adapting to the human world: dogs’ responsiveness to our social cues. Behav Process 80:325–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roch M, Soldevilla M, Hoenigman R, Wiggins S, Hidebrand J (2008) Comparison of machine learning techniques for the classification of echolocation clicks from three species of odontocetes. Can Acoust 36(1):41–47Google Scholar
  60. Root-Gutteridge H, Bencsik M, Chebli M, Gentle L, Terrell-Nield C, Bourit A, Yarnell RW (2013) Improving individual identification in captive Eastern grey wolves (Canis lupus lycaon) using the time course of howl amplitudes. Bioacoustics 23(1):39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Saeys Y, Inza I, Larrañaga P (2007) A review of feature selection techniques in bioinformatics. Bioinformatics 23(19):2507–2517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Serpell J, Hsu Y (2001) Development and validation of a novel method for evaluating behavior and temperament in guide dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 72:347–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smith A, Birnie A, Lane K, French J (2009) Production and perception of sex differences in vocalizations of wied’s black-tufted-ear marmosets (callithrix kuhlii). Am J Primatol 71:324–332PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stone M (1974) Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J R Stat Soc B 36(2):111–147Google Scholar
  65. Sucar E, Bielza C, Morales E, Hernandez-Leal P, Zaragoza J, Larrañaga P (2014) Multi-label classification with Bayesian network-based chain classifiers. Pattern Recogn Lett 41:14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Taylor A, Reby D, McComb K (2008) Human listeners attend to size information in domestic dog growls. J Acoust Soc Am 123(5):2903–2909PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Taylor A, Reby D, McComb K (2009) Context-related variation in the vocal growling behaviour of the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Ethology 115(10):905–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Taylor A, Reby D, McComb K (2010) Size communication in domestic dog, Canis familiaris, growls. Anim Behav 79(1):205–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Téglás E, Gergely A, Kupán K, Miklósi A, Topál J (2012) Dogs’ gaze following is tuned to human communicative signals. Curr Biol 22:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tembrock G (1976) Canid vocalizations. Behav Process 1:57–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Volodin I, Volodina E, Klenova A, Filatova O (2005) Individual and sexual differences in the calls of the monomorphic white-faced whistling duck dendrocygna viduata. Acta Ornithol 40:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wan M, Bolger N, Champagne F (2012) Human perception of fear in dogs varies according to experience with dogs. PLoS ONE 7(e51):775Google Scholar
  73. Yeon SC (2007) The vocal communication of canines. J Vet Behav 2:141–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Yin S (2002) A new perspective on barking in dogs (Canis familiaris). J Comp Psychol 116:189–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yin S, McCowan B (2004) Barking in domestic dogs: context specificity and individual identification. Anim Behav 68:343–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yovel Y, Au WWL (2010) How can dolphins recognize fish according to their echoes? A statistical analysis of fish echoes. PLoS ONE 5(11):e14,054CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana Larrañaga
    • 1
  • Concha Bielza
    • 3
  • Péter Pongrácz
    • 2
  • Tamás Faragó
    • 2
  • Anna Bálint
    • 2
  • Pedro Larrañaga
    • 3
  1. 1.Student at the Universidad Alfonso X El SabioVillanueva de la CañadaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Ethology, Biological InstituteEötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Computational Intelligence GroupUniversidad Politecnica de MadridBoadilla del MonteSpain

Personalised recommendations