↓ Skip to main content

Quantifying Vocal Mimicry in the Greater Racket-Tailed Drongo: A Comparison of Automated Methods and Human Assessment

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
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.
Title
Quantifying Vocal Mimicry in the Greater Racket-Tailed Drongo: A Comparison of Automated Methods and Human Assessment
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0089540
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samira Agnihotri, P. V. D. S. Sundeep, Chandra Sekhar Seelamantula, Rohini Balakrishnan

Abstract

Objective identification and description of mimicked calls is a primary component of any study on avian vocal mimicry but few studies have adopted a quantitative approach. We used spectral feature representations commonly used in human speech analysis in combination with various distance metrics to distinguish between mimicked and non-mimicked calls of the greater racket-tailed drongo, Dicrurus paradiseus and cross-validated the results with human assessment of spectral similarity. We found that the automated method and human subjects performed similarly in terms of the overall number of correct matches of mimicked calls to putative model calls. However, the two methods also misclassified different subsets of calls and we achieved a maximum accuracy of ninety five per cent only when we combined the results of both the methods. This study is the first to use Mel-frequency Cepstral Coefficients and Relative Spectral Amplitude - filtered Linear Predictive Coding coefficients to quantify vocal mimicry. Our findings also suggest that in spite of several advances in automated methods of song analysis, corresponding cross-validation by humans remains essential.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 34 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Other 3 8%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 44%
Environmental Science 6 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 5 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 April 2021.
All research outputs
#6,403,199
of 22,747,498 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#76,881
of 194,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,338
of 221,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,088
of 6,078 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,747,498 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,162 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 221,372 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 6,078 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.