Literature DB >> 28972574

An annotated dataset of Egyptian fruit bat vocalizations across varying contexts and during vocal ontogeny.

Yosef Prat1, Mor Taub1, Ester Pratt1, Yossi Yovel1.   

Abstract

Animal acoustic communication research depends on our ability to record the vocal behaviour of different species. Only rarely do we have the opportunity to continuously follow the vocal behaviour of a group of individuals of the same species for a long period of time. Here, we provide a database of Egyptian fruit bat vocalizations, which were continuously recorded in the lab in several groups simultaneously for more than a year. The dataset includes almost 300,000 files, a few seconds each, containing social vocalizations and representing the complete vocal repertoire used by the bats in the experiment period. Around 90,000 files are annotated with details about the individuals involved in the vocal interactions, their behaviours and the context. Moreover, the data include the complete vocal ontogeny of pups, from birth to adulthood, in different conditions (e.g., isolated or in a group). We hope that this comprehensive database will stimulate studies that will enhance our understanding of bat, and mammal, social vocal communication.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28972574      PMCID: PMC5625625          DOI: 10.1038/sdata.2017.143

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Data        ISSN: 2052-4463            Impact factor:   6.444


Background & Summary

Comparative research of nonhuman animals can potentially shed light on the evolution of language and speech[1]. For instance, the study of animal vocal communication may reveal the roots of syntax and semantics[2,3]. Nonhuman vocalizations are often cryptic to a human observer, and with little prior knowledge about the animal-relevant acoustics, identifying essential information in them becomes an arduous task. Still, the discovery of nuances, which may be subtle to the human ear but important to the communicating animal, may become plausible if facilitated by large recording datasets. Here we present an extremely large collection of vocalizations of Egyptian fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus). Moreover, many of the vocalizations in this database are accompanied by relevant information such as the identities of the emitter and the addressee of the vocalization, and the related behavioural context. Bats are social mammals which use rich vocal communication[4-9], and have been found to possess the capability of vocal learning[10-13]. Being social animals which almost exclusively interact with each other in the dark, and together with the versatile vocal skills found in this group (e.g., refs 14,15), bats make an interesting model for vocal communication studies. Egyptian fruit bats live in colonies of dozens to thousands, and may live (at least) to the age of 25 years[16]. They are extremely vocal, with most vocal interactions involving mildly-aggressive encounters in the roost[17], and their vocalizations are composed of sequences of multi-harmonic low-fundamental syllables[13,17]. In this study, all the recordings were conducted in acoustically isolated cages, specifically designed for this purpose (Fig. 1). Bats were housed in these cages for periods of several months and were recorded around the clock with microphones and video cameras, which enabled detailed annotation of the interactions. Importantly, this study did not a-priory focus on specific types of vocalizations (such as songs, alarms, distress, etc.), hence the dataset mostly includes those vocalizations accompanying the everyday pairwise interactions of bats. Furthermore, the data covers the complete repertoire used by the bats during their housing in the experimental setup. The dataset also includes vocalizations of bats which were born inside the experimental setup, and recorded from birth to adulthood, under different experimental conditions (in isolation or in a group). Therefore, this collection enables the tracking of the vocal ontogeny of bat pups[13]. We provide the raw recordings (audio files of a few seconds each), which are usually of high signal-to-noise ratio. Retrieving the relevant, voiced, segments from a recorded audio track is often the first obstacle in analysing audio data. Thus, we provide a fairly accurate segmentation of the data (generated based on the method described in ref. 13), which paves an easy and straightforward way to process and analyse the vocalizations. The presented rich dataset can be potentially used to enhance our understanding of the origins of semantics (as in ref. 17), the ontogeny of a mammalian vocal communication (as in ref. 13), or even the putative use of syntax, as was observed, for instance, in courtship songs of birds[18,19] and songs of a few bat species[7,20].
Figure 1

The recording setup.

(a) Colony chamber (length: 190 cm; width: 90 cm; height: 82 cm). Chambers of this type housed Colony treatment adults and pups, as well as groups of weaned pups in both treatments. (b) Isolation chamber (length: 120 cm; width: 70 cm; height: 60 cm). Chambers of this type housed Isolation treatment mothers with their pre-weaned pups. Legend: 1. wooden box; 2. outer box for acoustic isolation; 3. A window allowing transition between the ‘roost’ compartment and the ‘foraging’ compartment, and allowing some light from the ‘foraging’ compartment to penetrate the ‘roost’ during the day; 4. foam for echoes reduction; 5. plastic mesh for facilitating hanging from the ceiling; 6. airflow ventilators; 7. feeding skewers; 8. lights (active during daytime); 9. ultrasonic microphones; 10. infra-red sensitive video cameras; 11. loudspeakers (not used in this study).

Methods

Animal retrieval and care

All adult bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus), females in their late pregnancy and males, were caught in a natural roost near Herzliya, Israel. This roost is inhabited by a colony of 5,000 to 10,000 bats. All recorded pups were born in the experimental setup to wild-caught females. The bats were kept in acoustic chambers, large enough to allow flight (Fig. 1), and fed with a variety of fruits. Pups were separated from their mothers, and joined together (if were previously isolated; see below), after all pups were observed feeding on fruit by themselves. All experiments were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Tel Aviv University (Number L-13-016). The use of bats was approved by the Israeli National Park Authority.

Experimental setup

Two types of chambers were used to house the bats: colony chambers (Fig. 1a) for most of the recordings, and (smaller) isolation chambers (Fig. 1b) for the recording of preweaned isolated pups. The chambers were acoustically isolated (see ref. 13 for isolation verification methods) and their walls were covered with foam to diminish echoes. The chambers were continuously monitored with IR-sensitive cameras and omnidirectional electret ultrasound microphones (Avisoft-Bioacoustics Knowles FG-O). Audio recordings were conducted using Avisoft-Bioacoustics UltraSoundGate 1216H A/D converter with a sampling rate of 250 kHz.

Recording settings

Two types of treatments are included in our data: colony and isolation (Table 1). In a colony treatment adult bats were housed together, usually a few females and one male, in a colony chamber (Fig. 1a), and pups were born to the females in this chamber. In the isolation treatment each pregnant female was housed alone in a private isolation chamber (Fig. 1b), and gave birth to one pup in this chamber. After weaning, pups of both treatments were housed in colony chambers without adults. The recordings were conducted from May 2012 to June 2013, and in February 2014, in chambers of different treatments in parallel, where each chamber was continuously recorded (see Table 1 for recording periods of each group, and Table 2 for treatment assignment of individual bats). Importantly, we include in this database all of the recordings in which our automatic tools identified social calls. Thus, the database can be regarded as practically complete representation of the social vocal communication used by the bats during the recording periods, and statistics about the total usage of vocalizations can be safely drawn. Recordings may only be missing on rare occasions, due to short periods of technical problems, such as power cuts or malfunctioning microphone replacements.
Table 1

Recording settings.

Treatment (ID)Treatment (Type)From Date (yyyy-mm-dd)To Date (yyyy-mm-dd)Social Composition (Bat IDs)Rec. Channel
Colony treatment involves a group of bats housed in a Colony chamber (Fig. 1a). Isolation treatment involves a mother and her pup housed in an Isolation chamber (Fig. 1a). When a bat ID appears in more than one treatment it was moved from one treatment to the next, always in the order of their start time, and usually at the beginning of the next treatment (exact times of recordings are included in Data Citation 1).
     
1Colony*2012-06-012012-09-06101,107,108,112,113,114,115,1184,11
2Colony*2012-06-012012-09-05102,109,110,111,116,119,1209,12
3Isolation2012-07-242012-08-26103,1042
4Isolation2012-07-282012-08-26105,1063
5Colony 2012-08-262012-12-12108,1157
6Colony 2012-08-262012-09-20111,12010
7Colony 2012-08-262012-09-20103,1055
8Colony2012-12-142013-01-02103,105,108,1157
9Colony*2012-10-012012-12-15111,120,213,214,216,221,226,228,2333,4
10Colony*2012-10-012012-12-15201,202,203,204,205,208,211,218,222,223,225,2311,2
11Isolation2012-10-012012-12-17207,20911
12Isolation2012-11-012012-12-17210,2129
13Isolation2012-10-012012-10-31215,2179/10§
14Isolation2012-10-012012-12-17220,2246
15Isolation2012-10-012012-12-17230,23212
16Colony2012-12-182013-05-12208,211,216,221,2315,9/8||
17Colony2012-12-182013-05-12207,210,215,220,2301,2
18Colony2013-05-132013-06-21207,210,216,221,2305,8
19Colony2013-05-132013-06-21208,211,215,220,2311,2
20Colony2014-02-062014-02-19207,208,211,215,216,2211,2

*The colony includes adults which were captured in the wild (and pups born in the experimental setup).

†The colony includes only pups which were born in the experimental setup (though they can already be adults in late recordings; refer to dates of birth in Table 2 for details).

‡When only two bats were housed in a colony chamber, only one of two compartments (the ‘roost’) was used (see Fig. 1a).

§Recording channel switched from 9 to 10 on Nov. 1st 2012.

||Recording channel switched from 9 to 8 on Jan. 22nd 2013.

Table 2

Description of recorded subjects.

Bat IDMother IDDate of birthSexTreatments#Rec. Emitted#Rec. Involved
Bat ID is used in the emitter and addressee columns in the annotations file. For pups which were born in the experimental setup the Mother ID and Date of birth are given; the others were captured in the wild as adults. Treatments as specified in Table 1. #Rec. Emitted is the number of recorded files containing vocalizations emitted by each bat (a recorded file may contain several vocalizations). #Rec. Involved is the number of recorded files containing vocalization emitted by or directed at the bat. NA—Not Available. Minus-signed emitter and/or addressee (e.g., −201) designates a common situation in which the pair of the interacting bats were recognized but their roles are in doubt (i.e., the call could be emitted by either bat).      
101NAAdultM1197903
102NAAdultF2307525
1031042012-06-28M3;762152
104NAAdultF3050
1051062012-05-19F4;773112
106NAAdultF4030
107NAAdultF1156274
1081072012-06-05NA1;5190247
109NAAdultF213292103
110NAAdultF210581791
1111102012-05-09F2;6;913412393
112NAAdultF1271582
1131122012-06-10NA197103
114NAAdultF1180478
1151142012-05-20F1;5230359
116NAAdultM2159327
118NAAdultF162190
119NAAdultF27861249
1201192012-06-05NA2;6;96591443
201NAAdultF106342402
2022022012-09-25NA10148330
203NAAdultF105792847
204NAAdultF1010862949
205NAAdultF104261779
2072092012-10-02M11;17;18;20124515277
2082042012-09-22M10;16;19;2077913947
209NAAdultF11092
2102122012-09-30NA12;17;1814935132
2112052012-09-22F10;16;19;2022258264
212NAAdultF1203
213NAAdultF912392734
2142132012-09-12NA991272
2152172012-10-04F13;17;19;20615015945
2162262012-09-12F9;16;18;2025247843
217NAAdultF130113
218NAAdultM10674029
2202242012-10-14NA14;17;1914269270
2212282012-09-26M9;16;18;2076511119
2222252012-09-25NA10102245
223NAAdultF1092213
224NAAdultF14072
225NAAdultF104681614
226NAAdultF923104062
228NAAdultF916534238
2302322012-10-14NA15;17;1832697946
2312032012-09-22M10;16;19305111206
232NAAdultF15041
233NAAdultM91687737
0Unknown
785821073   
Minus-sign (‘−’)Unknown whether the individual is the emitter or the addressee4407544710   

Data Records

The data (Data Citation 1) consist of: 293,238 recorded audio files (WAV format, sampling rate: 250 kHz, depth: 16 bit). The files are compressed (and can be extracted) using 7-zip (www.7-zip.org). One annotation file: Annotations.csv, with 91,080 annotations. These annotations were obtained from the videos (see below) and include details such as the emitter and context of each vocalization. The content of each column in the annotation file is described in Table 3, and descriptions of contexts and behaviours are depicted in Table 4. Each annotation corresponds to sequences of vocalizations in one file. Most files include a single interaction and, correspondingly, a single annotation, though some files record several interactions (and may be annotated with several annotations). Accordingly, columns 9 and 10 in Annotations.csv specify the location in the file to which each annotation refers (see Table 3).
Table 3

Annotation details.

ColumnDescription 
Descriptions of each column of the annotation file.  
1File IDFile Identifier with properties detailed in FileInfo.csv (Data Citation 1).
2EmitterBat ID of the emitter of the vocalizations. Negative value: the specified ID is of either the emitter or the addressee.
3AddresseeBat ID of the addressee of the vocalizations.Negative value: the specified ID is of either the emitter or the addressee.
4ContextThe context of the vocalizations as specified in Table 4.
5Emitter pre-vocalization actionThe action performed by the emitter of the vocalization before the start of the vocal interaction.
6Addressee pre-vocalization actionThe action performed by the addressee of the vocalization before the start of the vocal interaction.
7Emitter post-vocalization actionThe action performed by the emitter of the vocalization after the end of the vocal interaction.
8Addressee post-vocalization actionThe action performed by the addressee of the vocalization after the end of the vocal interaction.
9Start sampleThe annotation refers to the section beginning at this sample in the file (File ID, WAV format)
10End sampleThe annotation refers to the section which ends at this sample in the file.
Table 4

Annotated contexts and behaviours.

IDContext/BehaviourDescription# Rec.
Descriptions of the contexts and behaviours appearing in the annotation file, and the number of recordings obtained for each category.
   
Context
   
 0UnknownUnknown context640
 1SeparationEmitted (rarely) by adults when separated from the group.504
 2BitingEmitted by a bat after being bitten by another.1788
 3FeedingThe interaction involves food.6683
 4FightingThe interaction involves intense aggressive physical contact.7963
 5GroomingThe interaction involves one bat grooming another.383
 6IsolationEmitted by young pups.5714
 7KissingThe interaction involves one bat licking another's mouth.362
 8LandingThe interaction involves one bat landing on top of another.16
 9Mating protestEmitted by a female protesting a mating attempt.2338
 10Threat-likeThe interaction involves contactless aggressive displays.1065
 11GeneralUnspecified context. The interacting bats are usually 10–20 cm apart (in other interactions the bats are usually closer).29627
 12SleepingThe interaction occurs in the sleep cluster.33997
Pre-vocalization action
   
 0UnknownUnknown action13553*
 1Fly inThe bat approached the interaction location flying.3909*
 2PresentThe bat was present in the interaction location before the interaction started.158164*
 3Crawl inThe bat approached the interaction location crawling.6534*
Post-vocalization action
   
 0UnknownUnknown action13437*
 1CowerThe bat cowered, partially covering its head with the wings.77*
 2Fly awayThe bat left the interaction location flying.6745*
 3StayThe bat stayed at the interaction location after the interaction ended.155485*
 4Crawl awayThe bat left the interaction location crawling.6416*

*Counted for both the emitter and addressee in each interaction.

One file describing the audio files: FileInfo.csv, which includes the exact recording time, the recording channel, and the exact time of the voiced segments in each file. One metadata file: Metadata.pdf, with details about the subjects and annotation definitions (Tables 1,2,3,4). A set of audio example files. Example videos of different interactions. A folder with example raw video recordings. A sample Matlab code exemplifying the segmentation and noise-filtering of raw audio recording. A similar process was used for obtaining the start and end positions of voiced segments (given in FileInfo.csv), and for filtering voiceless files; parameter adjustment might be required for specific tasks. The recorded audio files are divided into folders of no more than 10,000 files for the convenience of use (this division has no significance). Note that two non-annotated files might be different recordings of the same call, if they were recorded at the same time, in the same treatment, in different channels, though it is not necessarily the case, and this is never the case for annotated files. Such duplicates can be excluded by the user by inspecting the recordings themselves. The annotation and metadata files are in comma-separated-value format (CSV) to ease their use with automatic tools, and to allow their direct upload into spreadsheet software. The metadata file includes descriptions of all identifiers in the annotation file. The example files include a few audio files exemplifying different recorded sounds, to facilitate the familiarity of the user with the recorded data. These examples include social call syllables, isolation calls of young pups, echolocation clicks, and examples of background noises (e.g., cage noise, microphone direct hit, etc., which are all rare in this database).

Technical Validation

The annotation types (contexts or behaviours) were defined by YP and MT. The recordings were annotated using the videos by MT and EP, or by trained students. These observers were certified after annotating a few recording days, which were then validated by an expert (YP or MT). In annotating the recordings we adopted a conservative approach, in which we designated as ‘unknown’ any type of data for which we had any doubt. Despite the training of the observers, some noise might have been introduced during the hundreds of hours of manual annotations, thus we estimated an error rate by a post-hoc quality test: 435 annotated recordings were sampled randomly and were then carefully re-annotated by EP, MT, and YP. Errors were counted when there were either a discrepancy between the post-hoc and the original annotations, or when the post-hoc examination concluded that some doubt still exists. The error rates were 2.1% (95% Confidence-Interval [CI]: 0.8–3.4%) for the emitter identification, 2.1% (95% CI: 0.8–3.4%) for the addressee identification, and 4% (95% CI: 2.2–5.8%) for the context identification. Thus we estimate the accuracy of the annotations as 97.9% for the emitter and addressee, and 96% for the context.

Usage Notes

The FileInfo.csv file includes automatically generated start and end positions of voiced segments (in samples) for each file. This enables an immediate analysis of the data without the need to apply any pre-processing. However, we encourage users to verify the suitability of the automatic segmentation (given in FileInfo.csv) to their needs by reviewing it in a random sample of recordings. To facilitate such review, and familiarity with the database, we provide a small library of examples of different sounds which might be encountered in the raw recordings, including social calls (which are the core interest of this study, and the most common sounds in the database), echolocation clicks (which are sporadically recorded before or after social calls), cage noises (relatively rare), and pup isolation calls (which are distinct from adults calls). For a usage which is sensitive to possible differences between microphones, one may take advantage of the Recording channel (different channels represent different microphones) field in FileInfo.csv (note that some microphones might have been replaced during the experiment, although these replacements were rare).

Additional Information

How to cite this article: Prat, Y. et al. An annotated dataset of Egyptian fruit bat vocalizations across varying contexts and during vocal ontogeny. Sci. Data 4:170143 doi: 10.1038/sdata.2017.143 (2017). Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
  13 in total

Review 1.  Revisiting the syntactic abilities of non-human animals: natural vocalizations and artificial grammar learning.

Authors:  Carel ten Cate; Kazuo Okanoya
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  Syllable acoustics, temporal patterns, and call composition vary with behavioral context in Mexican free-tailed bats.

Authors:  Kirsten M Bohn; Barbara Schmidt-French; Sean T Ma; George D Pollak
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Babbling behavior in the sac-winged bat (Saccopteryx bilineata).

Authors:  Mirjam Knörnschild; Oliver Behr; Otto von Helversen
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2006-05-31

4.  The evolution of speech: a comparative review.

Authors: 
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 20.229

5.  Social calls coordinate foraging in greater spear-nosed bats

Authors: 
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 2.844

6.  Vocal learning by greater spear-nosed bats.

Authors:  J W Boughman
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  1998-02-07       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 7.  Vocal production learning in bats.

Authors:  Mirjam Knörnschild
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2014-07-20       Impact factor: 6.627

8.  Versatility and stereotypy of free-tailed bat songs.

Authors:  Kirsten M Bohn; Barbara Schmidt-French; Christine Schwartz; Michael Smotherman; George D Pollak
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-08-25       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Stepwise acquisition of vocal combinatorial capacity in songbirds and human infants.

Authors:  Dina Lipkind; Gary F Marcus; Douglas K Bemis; Kazutoshi Sasahara; Nori Jacoby; Miki Takahasi; Kenta Suzuki; Olga Feher; Primoz Ravbar; Kazuo Okanoya; Ofer Tchernichovski
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2013-05-29       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Vocal learning in a social mammal: Demonstrated by isolation and playback experiments in bats.

Authors:  Yosef Prat; Mor Taub; Yossi Yovel
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 14.136

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Behaviour, biology and evolution of vocal learning in bats.

Authors:  Sonja C Vernes; Gerald S Wilkinson
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2019-11-18       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  A mechanism for punctuating equilibria during mammalian vocal development.

Authors:  Thiago T Varella; Yisi S Zhang; Daniel Y Takahashi; Asif A Ghazanfar
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2022-06-13       Impact factor: 4.779

3.  Finding, visualizing, and quantifying latent structure across diverse animal vocal repertoires.

Authors:  Tim Sainburg; Marvin Thielk; Timothy Q Gentner
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 4.475

4.  Automated annotation of birdsong with a neural network that segments spectrograms.

Authors:  Yarden Cohen; David Aaron Nicholson; Alexa Sanchioni; Emily K Mallaber; Viktoriya Skidanova; Timothy J Gardner
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 8.713

5.  Long-term and persistent vocal plasticity in adult bats.

Authors:  Daria Genzel; Janki Desai; Elana Paras; Michael M Yartsev
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2019-07-29       Impact factor: 14.919

6.  BioCPPNet: automatic bioacoustic source separation with deep neural networks.

Authors:  Peter C Bermant
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-12-06       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.