Does SonoBat's species classification work?
Comparisons have been made between different classifier programs using the available versions at the time. Throughout the years, these comparisons have shown a consistent trend: no classifiers based on zero-crossing recordings have exceeded SonoBat’s full spectrum based classification performance. This suggests that full spectrum data analysis leads to a high percentage of your files that are classified and a high percentage that emerge correct. Below are a few snapshot comparisons of real projects . . .
Indiana Bat Survey, Illinois & Missouri
Known Bat Call Collection from the Western US
Comparative classification performance of Kaleidoscope and SonoBat on 5224 good quality species- known recordings collected and processed by T. Malloy of Stanford Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve in California (2014). The "% classified" column indicates the percentage of known recordings given a decision, and the "% correct" column indicates the rate of correct classification of those outputted with a decision. SonoBat more often was correct with -every- species.
Florida Bonneted Bat • Florida
Columbus Park • Arizona
Summary of four SonoBatLIVE units that collected 1,607 files on the last night of the International Acoustic Symposium in Tucson, AZ in March 2017. Chris Corben spotlighted myotis and identified them all as Myotis velifer using his experience as a guide and without using auto-ID software. SonoBatLIVE auto classified almost all the myotis as Myotis velifer. Other results included 753 Tabr accepted and not a single call was misclassified as Laci. The Laxa and Pahe presence was confirmed by manual vetting. SonoBatLIVE most closely returned results predicted by the 3rd party expert, as well as correctly teased out 3 other species.
Yolo Roost • California
SonoBatLIVE vs. Echometer Touch • Mt. Lemmon, Arizona
- John Chenger