Show simple item record

Files in this item


Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorLangley, Izzy
dc.contributor.authorHague, Emily
dc.contributor.authorArso Civil, Monica
dc.identifier.citationLangley , I , Hague , E & Arso Civil , M 2022 , ' Assessing the performance of open-source, semi-automated pattern recognition software for harbour seal ( P. v. vitulina ) photo ID ' , Mammalian Biology , vol. 102 , pp. 973-982 .
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 277085347
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 19c45c3b-fe54-4938-b754-c3572cf649ad
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0001-8239-9526/work/105007001
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85120699225
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000730033300002
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0002-8957-1373/work/116598371
dc.descriptionFunding: Data collection was funded by the Scottish Government (grant number MMSS/002/15)en
dc.description.abstractPhotographic identification (photo ID) is a well-established, non-invasive, and relatively cost-effective technique to collect longitudinal data from species that can be individually recognised based on natural markings. This method has been improved by computer-assisted pattern recognition software which speed up the processing of large numbers of images. Freely available algorithms exist for a wide range of species, but the choice of software can have significant effects on the accuracy of individual capture histories and derived demographic parameter estimates. We tested the performance of three open source, semi-automated pattern recognition software algorithms for harbour seal (Phoca vitulina vitulina) photo ID: ExtractCompare, I3S Pattern and Wild-ID. Performance was measured as the ability of the software to successfully score matching images higher than non-matching images using the cumulative density function (CDF). The CDF for the top ranked potential match was highest for Wild-ID (CDF1 = 0.34–0.58), followed by ExtractCompare (CDF1 = 0.24–0.36) and I3S pattern (CDF1 = 0.02–0.3). This trend emerged regardless of how many potential matches were inspected. The highest performing aspects in ExtractCompare were left heads, whereas in I3S Pattern and Wild-ID these were front heads. Within each aspect, images collected using a camera and lens performed higher than images taken by a camera and scope. Data processing within ExtractCompare took  > 4 × longer than Wild-ID, and  > 3 × longer than I3S Pattern. We found that overall, Wild-ID outperformed both ExtractCompare and I3S Pattern under tested scenarios, and we therefore recommend its assistance in harbour seal photo ID.
dc.relation.ispartofMammalian Biologyen
dc.rightsCopyright © 2021 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Säugetierkunde. This work has been made available online in accordance with publisher policies or with permission. Permission for further reuse of this content should be sought from the publisher or the rights holder. This is the author created accepted manuscript following peer review and may differ slightly from the final published version. The final published version of this work is available at
dc.subjectPattern recognitionen
dc.subjectPhoto IDen
dc.subjectSoftware comparisonen
dc.subjectHarbour sealen
dc.subjectPhoca vitulina vitulinaen
dc.subjectGC Oceanographyen
dc.subjectQA76 Computer softwareen
dc.subjectQL Zoologyen
dc.titleAssessing the performance of open-source, semi-automated pattern recognition software for harbour seal (P. v. vitulina) photo IDen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. School of Biologyen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Sea Mammal Research Uniten
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record