Call recognition and individual identification of fish vocalizations based on automatic speech recognition: An example with the Lusitanian toadfish

The study of acoustic communication in animals often requires not only the recognition of species specific acoustic signals but also the identification of individual subjects, all in a complex acoustic background. Moreover, when very long recordings are to be analyzed, automatic recognition and identification processes are invaluable tools to extract the relevant biological information. A pattern recognition methodology based on hidden Markov models is presented inspired by successful results obtained in the most widely known and complex acoustical communication signal: human speech. This methodology was applied here for the first time to the detection and recognition of fish acoustic signals, specifically in a stream of round-the-clock recordings of Lusitanian toadfish (Halobatrachus didactylus) in their natural estuarine habitat. The results show that this methodology is able not only to detect the mating sounds (boatwhistles) but also to identify individual male toadfish, reaching an identification rate of ca. 95%. Moreover this method also proved to be a powerful tool to assess signal durations in large data sets. However, the system failed in recognizing other sound types.

Analytic and heuristic processes in the detection and resolution of conflict

Previous research with the ratio-bias task found larger response latencies for conflict trials where the heuristic- and analytic-based responses are assumed to be in opposition (e.g., choosing between 1/10 and 9/100 ratios of success) when compared to no-conflict trials where both processes converge on the same response (e.g., choosing between 1/10 and 11/100). This pattern is consistent with parallel dualprocess models, which assume that there is effective, rather than lax, monitoring of the output of heuristic processing. It is, however, unclear why conflict resolution sometimes fails. Ratio-biased choices may increase because of a decline in analytical reasoning (leaving heuristic-based responses unopposed) or to a rise in heuristic processing (making it more difficult for analytic processes to override the heuristic preferences). Using the process-dissociation procedure, we found that instructions to respond logically and response speed affected analytic (controlled) processing (C), leaving heuristic processing (H) unchanged, whereas the intuitive preference for large nominators (as assessed by responses to equal ratio trials) affected H but not C. These findings create new challenges to the debate between dual-process and singleprocess accounts, which are discussed.