Human vs. machine: identification of bat species from their echolocation calls by humans and by artificial neural networks

Automated remote ultrasound detectors allow large amounts of data on bat presence and activity to be collected. Processing of such data involves identifying bat species from their echolocation calls. Automated species identification has the potential to provide more consistent, predictable, and potentially higher levels of accuracy than identification by humans. In contrast, identification by humans permits flexibility and intelligence in identification, as well as the incorporation of features and patterns that may be difficult to quantify. We compared humans with artificial neural networks (ANNs) in their ability to classify short recordings of bat echolocation calls of variable signal to noise ratios; these sequences are typical of those obtained from remote automated recording systems that are often used in large-scale ecological studies. We presented 45 recordings (1–4 calls) produced by known species of bats to ANNs and to 26 human participants with 1 month to 23 years of experience in acoustic identification of bats. Humans correctly classified 86% of recordings to genus and 56% to species; ANNs correctly identified 92% and 62%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the performance of ANNs and that of humans, but ANNs performed better than about 75% of humans. There was little relationship between the experience of the human participants and their classification rate. However, humans with <1 year of experience performed worse than others. Currently, identification of bat echolocation calls by humans is suitable for ecological research, after careful consideration of biases. However, improvements to ANNs and the data that they are trained on may in future increase their performance to beyond those demonstrated by humans.