Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Understanding External Influences on Target Detection and Classification Using Camera Trap Images and Machine Learning.
Westworth, Sally O A; Chalmers, Carl; Fergus, Paul; Longmore, Steven N; Piel, Alex K; Wich, Serge A.
Afiliación
  • Westworth SOA; School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK.
  • Chalmers C; School of Computer Science and Mathematics, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK.
  • Fergus P; School of Computer Science and Mathematics, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK.
  • Longmore SN; Astrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK.
  • Piel AK; Department of Anthropology, University College London, Taviton Street, London WC1H OBW, UK.
  • Wich SA; School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK.
Sensors (Basel) ; 22(14)2022 Jul 19.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35891075
ABSTRACT
Using machine learning (ML) to automate camera trap (CT) image processing is advantageous for time-sensitive applications. However, little is currently known about the factors influencing such processing. Here, we evaluate the influence of occlusion, distance, vegetation type, size class, height, subject orientation towards the CT, species, time-of-day, colour, and analyst performance on wildlife/human detection and classification in CT images from western Tanzania. Additionally, we compared the detection and classification performance of analyst and ML approaches. We obtained wildlife data through pre-existing CT images and human data using voluntary participants for CT experiments. We evaluated the analyst and ML approaches at the detection and classification level. Factors such as distance and occlusion, coupled with increased vegetation density, present the most significant effect on DP and CC. Overall, the results indicate a significantly higher detection probability (DP), 81.1%, and correct classification (CC) of 76.6% for the analyst approach when compared to ML which detected 41.1% and classified 47.5% of wildlife within CT images. However, both methods presented similar probabilities for daylight CT images, 69.4% (ML) and 71.8% (analysts), and dusk CT images, 17.6% (ML) and 16.2% (analysts), when detecting humans. Given that users carefully follow provided recommendations, we expect DP and CC to increase. In turn, the ML approach to CT image processing would be an excellent provision to support time-sensitive threat monitoring for biodiversity conservation.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Procesamiento de Imagen Asistido por Computador / Aprendizaje Automático Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies Límite: Animals / Humans Idioma: En Revista: Sensors (Basel) Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Procesamiento de Imagen Asistido por Computador / Aprendizaje Automático Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies Límite: Animals / Humans Idioma: En Revista: Sensors (Basel) Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Reino Unido
...