Classifying Frog Calls Using Gaussian Mixture Models

  • Dalwinderjeet KularEmail author
  • Kathryn Hollowood
  • Olatide Ommojaro
  • Katrina Smart
  • Mark Bush
  • Eraldo Ribeiro
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9475)


We focus on the automatic classification of frog calls using shape features of spectrogram images. Monitoring frog populations is a means for tracking the health of natural habitats. This monitoring task is usually done by well-trained experts who listen and classify frog calls, which are tasks that are both time consuming and error prone. To automate this classification process, our method treats the sound signal of a frog call as a texture image, which is modeled as Gaussian mixture model. The method is simple but it has shown promising results. Tests performed on a dataset of frog calls of 15 different species produced an average classification rate of 80 %, which approximates human performance.


Feature Extraction Gaussian Mixture Model Audio Signal Frog Species Cane Toad 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors acknowledge support from National Science Foundation (NSF) grants No. 1263011 and No. 1152306. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.


  1. 1.
    Hsu, A., Emerson, J., Levy, M., de Sherbinin, A., Johnson, L., Malik, O., Schwartz, J., Jaiteh, M.: The 2014 environmental performance index. Technical report,Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, New Haven, CT (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agency, U.E.P.: America’s wetlands : our vital link between land and water. Technical report, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Knutson, M., Sauer, J., Olsen, D., Mossman, M., Hemesath, L., Lannoo, M.: Landscape associations of frog and toad species in iowa and wisconsin, USA. (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Papadimitriou, E., Loumbourdis, N.: Copper kinetics and hepatic metallothionein levels in the frog rana ridibunda, after exposure to cucl2. Biometals 16, 271–277 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stolyar, O., Loumbourdis, N., Falfushinska, H., Romanchuk, L.: Comparison of metal bioavailability in frogs from urban and rural sites of western ukraine. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 54, 107–113 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carey, C., Bryant, C.J.: Possible interrelations among environmental toxicants, amphibian development, and decline of amphibian populations. Environ. Health Perspect. 103, 13–17 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Searle, C.L., Biga, L.M., Spatafora, J.W., Blaustein, A.R.: A dilution effect in the emerging amphibian pathogen batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 108, 16322–16326 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Relyea, R.A.: Trait-mediated indirect effects in larval anurans: reversing competition with the threat of predation. Ecology 81, 2278–2289 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mossman, M.J., Hartman, L.M., Hay, R., Sauer, J.R., Dhuey, B.J.: Monitoring long-term trends in wisconsin frog and toad populations. In: Status and Conservation of Midwestern Amphibians, pp. 169–198 (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grigg, G., Taylor, A., Mc Callum, H., Watson, G.: Monitoring frog communities: an application of machine learning. In: Proceedings of Eighth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, Portland Oregon, pp. 1564–1569 (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Acevedo, M.A., Corrada-Bravo, C.J., Corrada-Bravo, H., Villanueva-Rivera, L.J., Aide, T.M.: Automated classification of bird and amphibian calls using machine learning: A comparison of methods. Ecol. Inform. 4, 206–214 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Han, N.C., Muniandy, S.V., Dayou, J.: Acoustic classification of australian anurans based on hybrid spectral-entropy approach. Appl. Acoust. 72, 639–645 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Graciarena, M., Delplanche, M., Shriberg, E., Stolcke, A., Ferrer, L.: Acoustic front-end optimization for bird species recognition. In: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 293–296 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Belyaeva, N.A., Yash-yee, K.L., Smartc, K.M., Ribeirod, E.: Whatfrog: A comparison of classification algorithms for automated anuran recognitionGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen, W.P., Chen, S.S., Lin, C.C., Chen, Y.Z., Lin, W.C.: Automatic recognition of frog calls using a multi-stage average spectrum. Comput. Math. Appl. 64, 1270–1281 (2012). Advanced Technologies in Computer, Consumer and ControlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xie, J., Towsey, M., Yasumiba, K., Zhang, J., Roe, P.: Detection of anuran calling activity in long field recordings for bio-acoustic monitoring. In: 2015 IEEE Tenth International Conference on Intelligent Sensors, Sensor Networks and Information Processing (ISSNIP), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Visual Geometry Group: Department of Engineering Science, U.o.O. Texture classification (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dalwinderjeet Kular
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kathryn Hollowood
    • 3
  • Olatide Ommojaro
    • 4
  • Katrina Smart
    • 1
  • Mark Bush
    • 2
  • Eraldo Ribeiro
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Vision Laboratory, Department of Computer SciencesFlorida Institute of TechnologyMelbourneUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesFlorida Institute of TechnologyMelbourneUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer Science, Mathematics, and PhysicsRoberts Wesleyan CollegeRochesterUSA
  4. 4.Engineering, Mathematics, and Computer ScienceGeorgia Perimeter CollegeClarkstonUSA

Personalised recommendations