↓ Skip to main content

Acoustic Identification of Twelve Species of Echolocating Bat By Discriminant Function Analysis and Artificial Neural Networks

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Experimental Biology, September 2000
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
11 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
510 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Acoustic Identification of Twelve Species of Echolocating Bat By Discriminant Function Analysis and Artificial Neural Networks
Published in
Journal of Experimental Biology, September 2000
DOI 10.1242/jeb.203.17.2641
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

We recorded echolocation calls from 14 sympatric species of bat in Britain. Once digitised, one temporal and four spectral features were measured from each call. The frequency-time course of each call was approximated by fitting eight mathematical functions, and the goodness of fit, represented by the mean-squared error, was calculated. Measurements were taken using an automated process that extracted a single call from background noise and measured all variables without intervention. Two species of Rhinolophus were easily identified from call duration and spectral measurements. For the remaining 12 species, discriminant function analysis and multilayer back-propagation perceptrons were used to classify calls to species level. Analyses were carried out with and without the inclusion of curve-fitting data to evaluate its usefulness in distinguishing among species. Discriminant function analysis achieved an overall correct classification rate of 79% with curve-fitting data included, while an artificial neural network achieved 87%. The removal of curve-fitting data improved the performance of the discriminant function analysis by 2 %, while the performance of a perceptron decreased by 2 %. However, an increase in correct identification rates when curve-fitting information was included was not found for all species. The use of a hierarchical classification system, whereby calls were first classified to genus level and then to species level, had little effect on correct classification rates by discriminant function analysis but did improve rates achieved by perceptrons. This is the first published study to use artificial neural networks to classify the echolocation calls of bats to species level. Our findings are discussed in terms of recent advances in recording and analysis technologies, and are related to factors causing convergence and divergence of echolocation call design in bats.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 510 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 10 2%
Germany 7 1%
United States 6 1%
Portugal 5 <1%
Brazil 4 <1%
Mexico 4 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Colombia 3 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Other 15 3%
Unknown 451 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 100 20%
Researcher 98 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 77 15%
Student > Bachelor 47 9%
Other 46 9%
Other 85 17%
Unknown 57 11%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 308 60%
Environmental Science 85 17%
Computer Science 10 2%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 8 2%
Engineering 7 1%
Other 26 5%
Unknown 66 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 August 2025.
All research outputs
#5,749,197
of 26,434,713 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Experimental Biology
#3,040
of 9,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,448
of 38,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Experimental Biology
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,434,713 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,615 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 38,104 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.