MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386070812 · doi:10.11159/icbes23.133

Infant Cry Signal Detection And Classification Using Deep Learning

2023· article· en· W4386070812 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Omnia Magdy Badreldine, Nagia M. Ghanem, Mohamed Selim, Nagwa El-Makky

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Electrical Engineering and Computer Systems and Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInfant Health and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceDeep learningSIGNAL (programming language)Detection theoryPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningSpeech recognitionTelecommunicationsDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detection of infant cries in noisy environments such as homes, hospitals and clinics is vital to determine the reason of baby's cry.Also, It is crucial to classify the detected cry signals into normal or pathological cries especially in the first months of the baby life.This paper proposes a deep learning automatic infant cry detection and classification system under noisy conditions.It classifies the detected cry signals into normal , asphyxia and deaf cry signals .The overall system is composed of two stages ; cry detection stage and cry classification stage.In first stage, features(Mel-frequency cepstrum coefficients MFCC) are extracted from audio signals collected from a daily life dataset and passed into a 2D-two layers convolutional neural network(2DCNN) to be classified into cry and non cry signals.In second stage , a 2D-three layers CNN is used to classify cry signals collected from dataset with cry segments only into Normal (N) , Asphyxia (A) and Deaf (D) signals according to extracted MFCC features .In first stage, Testing results show that the cry detection system reaches an accuracy of 99.59 % for classifying the signals into cry and non-cry .In second stage, Due to the lack of pathological cry signals datasets that are collected in noisy environments, we added different levels of white noise to the training dataset.This way, we were able to get more realistic results.In particular, our cry classification system achieves accuracy of 91.3% ,94.2% , 95.07 % (under white noise) with signal-to-noise ratio(SNR) of 5db, 10db and 15db, respectively.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Electrical Engineering and Computer Systems and ScienceSame topicInfant Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207