MUPET—Mouse Ultrasonic Profile ExTraction: A Signal Processing Tool for Rapid and Unsupervised Analysis of Ultrasonic Vocalizations

Neuron

Volumn 94, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 465-485.e5

  Van Segbroeck, Maarten ^a   Knoll, Allison T ^b   Levitt, Pat ^b,c   Narayanan, Shrikanth ^a  

^a University of Southern California   (United States)

^b CHILDREN S HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

automated; communication; high throughput; machine learning; repertoire; signal processing; social behavior; software; syllable; ultrasonic vocalizations

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; INHERITANCE; JUVENILE; MACHINE LEARNING; MALE; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SOCIAL INTERACTION; SOFTWARE; STRAIN DIFFERENCE; VOCALIZATION; ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ANIMAL; DEVICES; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; ULTRASOUND;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ANIMALS; MACHINE LEARNING; MICE; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOFTWARE; ULTRASONIC WAVES; VOCALIZATION, ANIMAL;

EID: 85018746545     PISSN: 08966273     EISSN: 10974199     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.04.005     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Adolphs, R., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., Neural systems for recognition of emotional prosody: a 3-D lesion study. Emotion 2 (2002), 23–51.
2. Arriaga, G., Jarvis, E.D., Mouse vocal communication system: are ultrasounds learned or innate?. Brain Lang. 124 (2013), 96–116.
3. Arriaga, G., Zhou, E.P., Jarvis, E.D., Of mice, birds, and men: the mouse ultrasonic song system has some features similar to humans and song-learning birds. PLoS ONE, 7, 2012, e46610.
4. Bennur, S., Tsunada, J., Cohen, Y.E., Liu, R.C., Understanding the neurophysiological basis of auditory abilities for social communication: a perspective on the value of ethological paradigms. Hear. Res. 305 (2013), 3–9.
5. Bertrand, A., Demuynck, K., Stouten, V., and van Hamme, H. (2008). Unsupervised learning of auditory filter banks using non-negative matrix factorization. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, pp. 4713–4716.
6. Bradbury, J.W., Vehrencamp, S.L., Principles of Animal Communication. Second Edition, 2011, Sinauer Associates.
7. Bregman, A.S., Campbell, J., Primary auditory stream segregation and perception of order in rapid sequences of tones. J. Exp. Psychol. 89 (1971), 244–249.
8. Burkett, Z.D., Day, N.F., Peñagarikano, O., Geschwind, D.H., White, S.A., VoICE: a semi-automated pipeline for standardizing vocal analysis across models. Sci. Rep., 5, 2015, 10237.
9. Chabout, J., Serreau, P., Ey, E., Bellier, L., Aubin, T., Bourgeron, T., Granon, S., Adult male mice emit context-specific ultrasonic vocalizations that are modulated by prior isolation or group rearing environment. PLoS ONE, 7, 2012, e29401.
10. Chabout, J., Sarkar, A., Dunson, D.B., Jarvis, E.D., Male mice song syntax depends on social contexts and influences female preferences. Front. Behav. Neurosci., 9, 2015, 76.
11. Chabout, J., Sarkar, A., Patel, S.R., Radden, T., Dunson, D.B., Fisher, S.E., Jarvis, E.D., A Foxp2 mutation implicated in human speech deficits alters sequencing of ultrasonic vocalizations in adult male mice. Front. Behav. Neurosci., 10, 2016, 197.
12. Davis, S., Mermelstein, P., Comparison of parametric representations for monosyllabic word recognition in continuously spoken sentences. IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process. 28 (1980), 357–366.
13. Doupe, A.J., Kuhl, P.K., Birdsong and human speech: common themes and mechanisms. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 22 (1999), 567–631.
14. Ehret, G., Haack, B., Ultrasonic recognition in house mice: key-stimulus configuration and recognition mechanism. J. Comp. Physiol. 148 (1982), 245–251.
15. Fischer, J., Hammerschmidt, K., Ultrasonic vocalizations in mouse models for speech and socio-cognitive disorders: insights into the evolution of vocal communication. Genes Brain Behav. 10 (2011), 17–27.
16. Fletcher, H., Auditory patterns. Rev. Mod. Phys. 12 (1940), 47–65.
17. Gelfand, S., Hearing: An Introduction to Psychological and Physiological Acoustics. Fifth Edition, 2009, Taylor & Francis Group.
18. Grimsley, J.M., Monaghan, J.J., Wenstrup, J.J., Development of social vocalizations in mice. PLoS ONE, 6, 2011, e17460.
19. Grimsley, J.M., Gadziola, M.A., Wenstrup, J.J., Automated classification of mouse pup isolation syllables: from cluster analysis to an Excel-based “mouse pup syllable classification calculator”. Front. Behav. Neurosci., 6, 2013, 89.
20. Gunawan, T., and Ambikairajah, E. (2004). Speech enhancement using temporal masking and fractional Bark gammatone filters. In Proceedings of the 10th Australian International Conference on Speech Science & Technology, pp. 8–10.
21. Hammerschmidt, K., Radyushkin, K., Ehrenreich, H., Fischer, J., Female mice respond to male ultrasonic ‘songs’ with approach behaviour. Biol. Lett. 5 (2009), 589–592.
22. Hammerschmidt, K., Reisinger, E., Westekemper, K., Ehrenreich, L., Strenzke, N., Fischer, J., Mice do not require auditory input for the normal development of their ultrasonic vocalizations. BMC Neurosci., 13, 2012, 40.
23. Hammerschmidt, K., Whelan, G., Eichele, G., Fischer, J., Mice lacking the cerebral cortex develop normal song: insights into the foundations of vocal learning. Sci. Rep., 5, 2015, 8808.
24. Hanson, J.L., Hurley, L.M., Female presence and estrous state influence mouse ultrasonic courtship vocalizations. PLoS ONE, 7, 2012, e40782.
25. Holmstrom, L.A., Eeuwes, L.B., Roberts, P.D., Portfors, C.V., Efficient encoding of vocalizations in the auditory midbrain. J. Neurosci. 30 (2010), 802–819.
26. Holy, T.E., Guo, Z., Ultrasonic songs of male mice. PLoS Biol., 3, 2005, e386.
27. Joder, C., and Schuller, B. (2012). Exploring nonnegative matrix factorization for audio classification: application to speaker recognition. In Proceedings of Speech Communication ITG Symposium, pp. 1–4.
28. Johnson, K., The auditory/perceptual basis for speech segmentation. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 50 (1997), 101–113.
29. Kikusui, T., Nakanishi, K., Nakagawa, R., Nagasawa, M., Mogi, K., Okanoya, K., Cross fostering experiments suggest that mice songs are innate. PLoS ONE, 6, 2011, e17721.
30. Konopka, G., Roberts, T.F., Animal models of speech and vocal communication deficits associated with psychiatric disorders. Biol. Psychiatry 79 (2016), 53–61.
31. Lahvis, G.P., Alleva, E., Scattoni, M.L., Translating mouse vocalizations: prosody and frequency modulation. Genes Brain Behav. 10 (2011), 4–16.
32. Lee, D.D., and Seung, H.S. (2001). Algorithms for non-negative matrix factorization. In NIPS, pp. 556–562.
33. Liu, R.C., Miller, K.D., Merzenich, M.M., Schreiner, C.E., Acoustic variability and distinguishability among mouse ultrasound vocalizations. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114 (2003), 3412–3422.
34. Mahrt, E.J., Perkel, D.J., Tong, L., Rubel, E.W., Portfors, C.V., Engineered deafness reveals that mouse courtship vocalizations do not require auditory experience. J. Neurosci. 33 (2013), 5573–5583.
35. Martin, R., Noise power spectral density estimation based on optimal smoothing and minimum statistics. IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 9 (2001), 504–512.
36. Narayanan, S., Georgiou, P.G., Behavioral signal processing: deriving human behavioral informatics from speech and language: computational techniques are presented to analyze and model expressed and perceived human behavior-variedly characterized as typical, atypical, distressed, and disordered-from speech and language cues and their applications in health, commerce, education, and beyond. Proc IEEE Inst Electr Electron Eng 101 (2013), 1203–1233.
37. Neilans, E.G., Holfoth, D.P., Radziwon, K.E., Portfors, C.V., Dent, M.L., Discrimination of ultrasonic vocalizations by CBA/CaJ mice (Mus musculus) is related to spectrotemporal dissimilarity of vocalizations. PLoS ONE, 9, 2014, e85405.
38. O'Grady, P., Pearlmutter, B., Discovering speech phones using convolutive non-negative matrix factorization with a sparseness constraint. Neurocomputing 72 (2008), 88–101.
39. Panksepp, J.B., Jochman, K.A., Kim, J.U., Koy, J.J., Wilson, E.D., Chen, Q., Wilson, C.R., Lahvis, G.P., Affiliative behavior, ultrasonic communication and social reward are influenced by genetic variation in adolescent mice. PLoS ONE, 2, 2007, e351.
40. Patterson, R., Nimmo-Smith, I., Holdsworth, J., and Rice, P. (1987). An efficient auditory filterbank based on the gammatone function. In IOC Speech Group Meeting on Auditory Modeling at RSRE.
41. Peirce, J.L., Lu, L., Gu, J., Silver, L.M., Williams, R.W., A new set of BXD recombinant inbred lines from advanced intercross populations in mice. BMC Genet., 5, 2004, 7.
42. Pomerantz, S.M., Nunez, A.A., Bean, N.J., Female behavior is affected by male ultrasonic vocalizations in house mice. Physiol. Behav. 31 (1983), 91–96.
43. Portfors, C.V., Types and functions of ultrasonic vocalizations in laboratory rats and mice. J. Am. Assoc. Lab. Anim. Sci. 46 (2007), 28–34.
44. Rabiner, L., Schafer, R., Theory and Applications of Digital Speech Processing. 2010, Prentice Hall.
45. Ramanarayanan, V., Goldstein, L., Narayanan, S.S., Spatio-temporal articulatory movement primitives during speech production: extraction, interpretation, and validation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134 (2013), 1378–1394.
46. Ramirez, J., Gorriz, J.M., Segura, J.C., Voice activity detection. Grimm, M., Kroschel, K., (eds.) Fundamentals and Speech Recognition System Robustness, Robust Speech Recognition and Understanding, 2007, InTech.
47. Sales, G., Pye, D., Ultrasonic Communication by Animals. 1974, Chapman and Hall, distributed in the U.S. by Halsted Press.
48. Scattoni, M.L., Gandhy, S.U., Ricceri, L., Crawley, J.N., Unusual repertoire of vocalizations in the BTBR T+tf/J mouse model of autism. PLoS ONE, 3, 2008, e3067.
49. Scattoni, M.L., Ricceri, L., Crawley, J.N., Unusual repertoire of vocalizations in adult BTBR T+tf/J mice during three types of social encounters. Genes Brain Behav. 10 (2011), 44–56.
50. Schluter, R., Bezrukov, L., Wagner, H., and Ney, H. (2007). Gammatone features and feature combination for large vocabulary speech recognition. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing.
51. Sewell, G.D., Ultrasonic communication in rodents. Nature, 227, 1970, 410.
52. Shao, Y., Jin, Z., Wang, D.L., and Srinivasan, S. (2009). An auditory-based feature for robust speech recognition. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, pp. 4625–4628.
53. Smaragdis, P., Convolutive speech bases adn their application to supervised speech separation. IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process. 15 (2007), 1–12.
54. Song, Y. N., Nicod, J., Min, B., Cheung, R.C.C., Amin, M.A., and Yan, H. (2013). Noise filtering and occurrence identification of mouse ultrasonic vocalization call. In International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, pp. 1218–1223.
55. Stevens, S.S., Volkmann, J., Newman, E.B., A scale for the measurement of the psychological magnitude pitch. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 8 (1937), 185–190.
56. Sugimoto, H., Okabe, S., Kato, M., Koshida, N., Shiroishi, T., Mogi, K., Kikusui, T., Koide, T., A role for strain differences in waveforms of ultrasonic vocalizations during male-female interaction. PLoS ONE, 6, 2011, e22093.
57. Taylor, B.A., Bedigian, H.G., Meier, H., Genetic studies of the Fv-1 locus of mice: linkage with Gpd-1 in recombinant inbred lines. J. Virol. 23 (1977), 106–109.
58. Taylor, B.A., Wnek, C., Kotlus, B.S., Roemer, N., MacTaggart, T., Phillips, S.J., Genotyping new BXD recombinant inbred mouse strains and comparison of BXD and consensus maps. Mamm. Genome 10 (1999), 335–348.
59. Thornton, L.M., Hahn, M.E., Schanz, N., Genetic and developmental influences on infant mouse ultrasonic calling. III. Patterns of inheritance in the calls of mice 3-9 days of age. Behav. Genet. 35 (2005), 73–83.
60. Torquet, N., de Chaumont, F., Faure, P., Bourgeron, T., Ey, E., mouseTube—a database to collaboratively unravel mouse ultrasonic communication. F1000Res., 5, 2016, 2332.
61. Valero, X., Alias, F., Gammatone cepstral coefficients: biologically inspired features for non-speech audio classification. IEEE Trans. Multimed. 14 (2012), 1684–1689.
62. Van Segbroeck, M., Van hamme, H., Unsupervised learning of time–frequency patches as a noise-robust representation of speech. Speech Commun. 51 (2009), 1124–1138.
63. Van Segbroeck, M., Tsiartas, A., and Narayanan, S.S. (2013). A robust frontend for VAD: exploiting contextual, discriminative and spectral cues of human voice. In Proceedings of InterSpeech, pp. 704–708.
64. von Merten, S., Hoier, S., Pfeifle, C., Tautz, D., A role for ultrasonic vocalisation in social communication and divergence of natural populations of the house mouse (Mus musculus domesticus). PLoS ONE, 9, 2014, e97244.
65. Wöhr, M., Dahlhoff, M., Wolf, E., Holsboer, F., Schwarting, R.K., Wotjak, C.T., Effects of genetic background, gender, and early environmental factors on isolation-induced ultrasonic calling in mouse pups: an embryo-transfer study. Behav. Genet. 38 (2008), 579–595.
66. Woolley, S.M., Portfors, C.V., Conserved mechanisms of vocalization coding in mammalian and songbird auditory midbrain. Hear. Res. 305 (2013), 45–56.
67. Yang, M., Loureiro, D., Kalikhman, D., Crawley, J.N., Male mice emit distinct ultrasonic vocalizations when the female leaves the social interaction arena. Front. Behav. Neurosci., 7, 2013, 159.
68. Zwicker, E., Subdivision of the audible frequency range into critical bands (Frequenzgruppen). J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 33, 1961, 248.