Hierarchical-Concatenate Fusion TDNN for sound event classification

Baishan Zhao; Jiwen Liang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312998

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 29, 2023
27 Dec 2023 Decision Letter - Ali Haider Khan, Editor PONE-D-23-39866Hierarchical-Concatenate Fusion TDNN for Sound Event ClassificationPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Liang, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 10 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ali Haider Khan Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: ● The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript ● A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) ● A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file) 4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ Additional Editor Comments: The manuscript is interesting and well organized, with detail and relevant information. However, it needs to be revised as per the details: The research problem article is addressing needs to be clearer and must be defined in the introduction section clearly. The research objectives are not defined clearly in the introduction section. There is a serious concern, authors should conduct a comparative analysis to prove that their research has better performance, and addressing all the objectives of this proposed system. Methodology relating to the objectives of this research is not satisfactory, need revision to fulfill all the objectives of this research. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: There are certain points that need to be addressed: 1: The author claims that "to solve the above problem, HCM is proposed," but the author did not specify the above problem. 2: The authors did not follow English rules. There should be some space between two sentences, e.g., (I went to shop. I bought eggs.) 2.1: All the text should be aligned, which does not seem to be the case in the research. 3: The authors did not mention their contributions specifically in the current research. 4: Overall, this research sounds good. 5: Recommended with minor changes. Reviewer #2: In figure 4, except conformer, all the methods showing and achieved same accuracy till epoch 29, justify it? is the code for this experiment is publicly available for authenticity? why you use the technique Mel spectrograms as input features in this proposed network? Have you check the accuracy of your proposed techniques on lesser or more epoch(i.e at 20-25 or at 35-40) ? ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Muhammad Sajid Reviewer #2: Yes: Tahir Abbas ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312998.r001
Revision 1
11 Feb 2024 Author Response Dear Ali Haider Khan, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to you and the editorial team of Plos One for the meticulous review of our SCI paper and for providing valuable feedback. After careful revisions, we have completed the necessary changes and are prepared to submit the final version of the manuscript. Here is our detailed response to each of the reviewers' comments: [Response to Reviewers] file: We have attached a document responding to each of the reviewers' comments, outlining specific modifications and providing explanations for our choices. [Revised Manuscript with Track Changes] file: We are submitting a revised manuscript with tracked changes, highlighting the modifications made in response to the reviewers' suggestions. [Manuscript] file: Additionally, we have included an unmarked version of the revised paper for your convenience in reviewing the final version of the manuscript. We greatly appreciate your guidance and the reviewers' insightful comments throughout the review process. The constructive feedback has not only enhanced the quality of our paper but also provided profound insights into our research. We will submit the revised manuscript as per your specified instructions, ensuring that it aligns with the publication standards of [Journal Name]. If you require any additional information or have further matters that need our attention, please feel free to inform us. Thank you once again for your professional guidance and your patience in awaiting our revised submission. We look forward to receiving the final approval and hope that the paper meets your expectations for publication in [Journal Name]. Thank you for your time and effort. Best regards, Jiwen Liang, Ph.D. School of Information Science and Engineering, Shenyang University of Technology 111 Shenliao West Road, Economic and Technological Development, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China Telephone Number: +8618624341326 E-mail Addresses: a17741226289@163.com Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312998.r002
21 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Ali Haider Khan, Editor PONE-D-23-39866R1Hierarchical-Concatenate Fusion TDNN for Sound Event ClassificationPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Liang, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 05 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ali Haider Khan Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: No ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: All the comments have been corrected, and the article is now written in proper shape. Recommended to accept Reviewer #3: (No Response) Reviewer #4: Review Comments (1) The abstract is poorly written. Most of the content focuses on the outcome of the proposed model. It should include a little bit of problem background and research objectives as well. (2) The Introduction section should provide a brief introduction for the rest of the article's contents instead of the literature review-related contents. (3) The literature review should be presented comparatively to show the research gap quantitatively (if possible). For instance, the author can identify some parameters and compare the related models/methodologies based on them in a tabular form. (4) The research objectives, aims, motivations, and ultimate beneficiaries should be well explained to show the significance of the research contribution. (5) The graphics quality of figures should be improved so that the textual information should be better readable. (6) It is suggested to add a little bit more description after each figure instead of giving their labels only. For reference, please see figures from numbers 4 to 7. (7) The two headings are being repeated. See line number 50 and 181. (8) Future directions should also be discussed to explain the possible future advancements in the underlined research area. (9) The referenced articles are fewer in number to better support the importance and significance of the underlying study. It is recommended to increase the number of referenced articles by adding more related models/methodologies to be compared with the proposed one. 10) Some spelling and grammatical mistakes are found in the article that must be corrected. For example see spelling of “classifiy”, “labeled”, “analysises”, etc., and a grammatical mistake like “…achieving an low Equal Error”, “…combined in pair”, “…are formed. And then, 101 these sub-groups are” ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Muhammad Sajid Reviewer #3: Yes: Tahir Abbas Reviewer #4: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Review Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312998.r003
Revision 2
4 May 2024 Author Response Comments from Reviewer： Reviewer #1: (1)Comment: All the comments have been corrected, and the article is now written in proper shape.Recommended to accept. Author Response: Thank you for your positive feedback on our manuscript titled "Hierarchical-Concatenate Fusion TDNN for Sound Event Classification." Reviewer #2: (1)Comment: The abstract is poorly written. Most of the content focuses on the outcome of the proposed model. It should include a little bit of problem background and research objectives as well. Author Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback regarding the abstract. We acknowledge the shortcomings of the abstract. We have re-written this part according to the reviewer. Specific modifications are as follows: First, we have corrected the "Semantic feature combination/parsing issue is one of the key problems in sound event classification." into "Semantic feature combination/parsing issue is one of the key problems in sound event classification for acoustic scene analysis, environmental sound monitoring, and urban soundscape analysis." Second, we have corrected the"Hierarchical-Concatenate Model (HCM) is proposed to improve the performance of ECAPA-TDNN Networks." into "TThis paper proposes the Hierarchical-Concatenate Fusion(HCF)-TDNN model by adding HCF Module to ECAPA-TDNN model for sound event classifica- tion." Third, we have corrected the"Second, the segmented features are convolved one by one. Finally, after the convolution is completed, the two adjacent parts are combined before proceeding with the next convolution." into "Then, the segmented features are convolved one by one for improving the small receptive field in perceiving details. Finally, after the convolution is completed, the two adjacent parts are combined before proceeding with the next convolution for enlarging the receptive field in capturing large targets." Finally, we have added the"The proposed model is trained and validated on the Urbansound8K dataset." and " which is approximate improvement of 5% (relatively) over ECAPA-TDNN model." (please see: Abstract ). Once again, we sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback and insights, which significantly contribute to refining our research. (2)Comment: The Introduction section should provide a brief introduction for the rest of the article's contents instead of the literature review-related contents. Author Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the Introduction section. Yes, We acknowledge the need to refocus the Introduction to provide a brief overview for the rest of the article's contents. In the introduction section, the rest of the article's contents have been added. Specifically: "The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In section 2, the sound event classification model was described, including the topology of HCM-TDNN and the details and operational principles of the HCM module structure. Section 3 details about dataset and the experimental setup. Section 4 shows results and makes analysis in different challenge part as well. Finally, our works are concluded in section 5".(please see:p.2 lines 44-48). Thank you once again for your valuable feedback and for emphasizing the importance of authenticity in scientific endeavors. (3)Comment: The literature review should be presented comparatively to show the research gap quantitatively (if possible). For instance, the author can identify some parameters and compare the related models/methodologies based on them in a tabular form. Author Response: Thank you for your suggestion regarding the presentation of the literature review. We acknowledge the importance of presenting the literature review in a comparative manner to highlight quantitative research gaps. We have enhanced our manuscript by comparing related models, as suggested. Specifically: We have corrected the "Notably, the ResNet combined with the SE module [11], Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) [12][13][14], and approaches grounded in Transformer Networks have been explored. " into " Notably, the ResNet[13] combined with the SE module [14] to enhance the robustness of classification model. Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) [15-17] have become the standard method for addressing various audio classification problems. And approaches grounded in Transformer Networks have achieved great success in the text recognition task."(please see:p.2 lines 13-18). Besides, we have revised the " Furthermore, prevalent neural network architectures are based on Time Delay Neural Networks (TDNN) [16], also known as x-vector architectures." into "Furthermore, prevalent neural network architectures are based on Time Delay Neural Networks (TDNN) [19], which widely used in Automatic Speaker Verification, such as x-vector system." (please see:p.2 lines 19-21). (4)Comment: The research objectives, aims, motivations, and ultimate beneficiaries should be well explained to show the significance of the research contribution. Author Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the clarity of the research objectives, aims, motivations, and ultimate beneficiaries. We have carefully read all suggestions by the reviewer and added corresponding descriptions of the research objectives, aims, motivations, and ultimate beneficiaries in the introduction section on page 2. We have revised the"Key contributions of this study include: (1) Novel Network Design: Proposing HCM, focusing on the effective fusion of multi-scale information to better capture both local and global features within Mel spectrograms. (2) Multi-scale Information Fusion: Through parallel convolutional layers in HCM, the model adeptly manages features of varying scales, significantly boosting the recognition of micro & macro features within Mel spectrograms."into"Meanwhile, key contributions of this study include: (1) Novel Model Design: Introducing HCF module, focusing on the effective amalgamation of multi-scale information to better capture both local and global features within Mel spectrograms to help this model get higher evaluation metrics. (2) Multi-scale Information Fusion: Parallel convolutional layers are used for multi-scale feature information fusion in HCF module to make the detection system more robust in different tasks".(please see:p.2 lines 36-41). We sincerely value your expertise, which has played a crucial role in shaping the final version of our manuscript. Your thorough review has been indispensable in elevating the quality of our research. (5)Comment: The graphics quality of figures should be improved so that the textual information should be better readable. Author Response: Thank you for your feedback regarding the graphics quality of the figures. We acknowledge the importance of enhancing the clarity and readability of the textual information within the figures. We have improved the quality of full-text images by increasing the image resolution, using vector graphics, redrawing images and other methods. In this updated version, we improved figures 1-8 in the main text. Details can be found in (Fig 1, page 3; Fig 2, page 3; Fig3, page4; Fig4, page9; Fig5, page10; Fig6, page10; Fig7, page11; Fig 8, page 11). "We have changed the captions of Fig 4, Fig 5, Fig 6 and Fig 7 from " Confusion matrix for (a) Conformer, (b) AF-TDNN, (c)ECAPA-TDNN and(d)HCM-TDNN." to " Comparison of Confusion Matrices for Eight Models in Sound Classification." (please see: p.9 ), " Comparison Box Plot of F1 Scores." to " Box Plot Analysis of F1 Scores for Various Models." (please see:p.10 ), " Comparison Box Plot of Kappa." to " Comparison Box Plot of Kappa Values for Different Models in Sound Classification." (please see:p.10 ) and " Loss curves of models." to " Comparison of Loss Curves Across Various Models on UrbanSound8K Dataset." (please see:p.11). (7)Comment: The two headings are being repeated. See line number 50 and 181. Author Response: Thank you for pointing out the repetition of the two headings. We have revised the document to ensure that each heading is unique and that there are no repetitions throughout the text. Specifically： The heading "SOUND EVENT CLASSIFICATION MODEL" has remained unchanged. (please see:p.2 lines 49). And the heading "SOUND EVENT CLASSIFICATION MODEL" has been changed to "EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS". (please see:p.7 lines 181). (8)Comment: Future directions should also be discussed to explain the possible future advancements in the underlined research area. Author Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We agree that discussing future directions is important to explain the possible future advancements in the research area. We have supplemented "In future work, the voice recognition system HCM-TDNN model will be deployed in edge computing devices for real-time urban environmental sound recognition scenarios." (please see:p.12 lines 248-250). (9)Comment: The referenced articles are fewer in number to better support the importance and significance of the underlying study. It is recommended to increase the number of referenced articles by adding more related models/methodologies to be compared with the proposed one. Author Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We recognize the need to increase the number of referenced articles to better support the importance and significance of our study. In the revised manuscript, We have added more relevant models and expanded the list of cited articles. The number of citations has increased by 8 compared to the first revised manuscript, bringing the overall number to 32. Particularly: [1]Mashhadi MMR, Osei-Bonsu K. Speech Emotion Recognition Using Machine Learning Techniques: Feature Extraction and Comparison of Convolutional Neural Network and Random Forest. PLOS ONE. 2023 Nov;18(11):e0291500. [2]Yue Z, Loweimi E, Christensen H, Barker J, Cvetkovic Z. Acoustic Modelling from Raw Source and Filter Components for Dysarthric Speech Recognition. IEEE/ACM Trans AudioSpeech and Lang Proc. 2022 Sep;30(1):2968-2980. [3]Du XW, Si LQ, Li PF, Yun ZH. A Method for Detecting the Quality of Cotton Seeds Based on An Improved Resnet50 Model. PLOS ONE. 2023 Feb;18(2):e0273057. [4]Diaz-Escobar J, Ord´o˜nez-Guill´en NE, Villarreal-Reyes S, Galaviz-Mosqueda A, Kober V, Rivera-Rodriguez R, Rizk JEL. Deep-Learning Based Detection of Covid-19 Using Lung Ultrasound Imagery. PLOS ONE. 2021;16(8):e0255886. [5]Haitao C, Yu L, Yun Y. Research on Voiceprint Recognition System Based on ECAPA-TDNN-GRU Architecture. 2023 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Big Data and Algorithms (EEBDA); 2023. [6]Xin A, Haitao Z, Shuai Z. ASC Model Based on Feature Stratification and Multichannel ECAPA-TDNN. 2022 International Symposium on Advances in Informatics, Electronics and Education (ISAIEE); 2022. [7]Kusumawati D, Ilham A A, Achmad A. Vgg-16 and Vgg-19 Architecture Models in Lie Detection Using Image Processing. 2022 6th International Conference on Information Technology, Information Systems and Electrical Engineering (ICITISEE); 2022. [8]Shi ML, Zheng DL, Wu TH, Zhang WJ, Fu RJ, Huang, KL. Small Object Detection Algorithm Incorporating Swin Transformer for Tea Buds. PLOS ONE. 2024;19(3):e0299902. (10)Comment: Some spelling and grammatical mistakes are found in the article that must be corrected. For example see spelling of “classifiy”, “labeled”, “analysises”, etc., and a grammatical mistake like “…achieving an low Equal Error”, “…combined in pair”, “…are formed. And then, 101 these sub-groups are” Author Response: Thank you for highlighting the spelling and grammatical errors in the manuscript. We acknowledge the mistakes you pointed out. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to correct these errors in the revised version. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312998.r004
9 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - K. Martin Sagayam, Editor PONE-D-23-39866R2Hierarchical-Concatenate Fusion TDNN for Sound Event ClassificationPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Liang, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 23 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, K. Martin Sagayam, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: As per the comment given by the reviewers your paper considered as major revision and the author should address the comments carefully. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The author has addressed all the relevant queries. He has clarified the details with proper figures and tables. I recommend that you accept the paper for publication. Reviewer #4: Review Comments (1) The abstract is poorly written. Most of the content focuses on the outcome of the proposed model. It should include a little bit of problem background and research objectives as well. Comment: The objectives in the abstract are still missing. (2) The literature review should be presented comparatively to show the research gap quantitatively (if possible). For instance, the author can identify some parameters and compare the related models/methodologies based on them in a tabular form. Comment: The author is unable to present the comparative analysis in a tabular form based on certain parameters. Either it should be added or explained that this type of study cannot be represented in the suggested way. (3) The research objectives, aims, motivations, and ultimate beneficiaries should be well explained to show the significance of the research contribution. Comment: It is still missing. The author just explained some of the aspects of the proposed methodology. (4) It is suggested to add a little bit more description after each figure instead of giving their labels only. For reference, please see figures from numbers 4 to 7. Comment: Need to be done. The description includes the detail of the figure e.g. its meaning, significance, and relevance to the ongoing discussion. (5) Future directions should also be discussed to explain the possible future advancements in the underlined research area. Comment: Future research directions are required instead of deployment details. (6) The referenced articles are fewer in number to better support the importance and significance of the underlying study. It is recommended to increase the number of referenced articles by adding more related models/methodologies to be compared with the proposed one. Comment: It is hard to mention a reasonable number of references. But seems that there is still room to increase the scope of the literature review. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #4: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Review Comments - 2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312998.r005
Revision 3
23 Aug 2024 Author Response In the revision, we have performed fully addressed the comments made by the reviewers (see the attached "Response to Reviewers" ). We have now revised the manuscript and our main revisions include: (a)We have added research objectives in abstract section; (b)We have supplemented the research objectives, motivations, and aims in the introduction section; (c)We have added some relevant references of sound classification model in the introduction section; (d)We have added a discussion of more sound classification models in the introduction section; (e)We have presented the comparative analysis in a tabular form based on certain parameters in the introduction section; (f)We have added a new description to the conclusion of our manuscript in future work and beneficiaries. (g)We have added a little bit more detail description of all figures.. We also provided an itemized response attached to this submission. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312998.r006
17 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Anirban Bhowmick, Editor Hierarchical-Concatenate Fusion TDNN for Sound Event Classification PONE-D-23-39866R3 Dear Dr. Liang, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Anirban Bhowmick, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Overall this paper sounds good and it shows that several amendments have been done. However, I suggest following changes that needs attention. 1. The 2nd paragraph of Introduction Section starting at line 15 is too long. It should be split into two paragraphs. 2. You should include few more comparative studies in Table 1 to show more strength of your research. 3. At the end of every figure, figure caption is mixed up with normal text, arrange all figures such that caption remains with the figure and text is on next paragraph. 4. Discuss each layer with bullet points or discuss in a paragraph not each layer on separate paragraph. 5. You have written few sentences only in a paragraph. Check at The fifth layer, The sixth layer, and The seventh layer. Text alignment is big issue in this article. Please make sure your text is written in the paragraph format. 6. Do not leave too much gap/space between paragraphs. 7. It is better to write Network Settings in a tabular form. 8. In Table 5, why sensitivity is 99.6%. What is the reason behind it? 9. Why did you use Kappa evaluation? And what is the significance in this article? 10. In Fig 6. Comparison box plot of Kappa values for different models in sound classification, explain this figure, what does Boxplot shows in this figure. 11. What are you experimental results with different number of epochs or other hyperparameters like learning rate, batch size etc. 12. Future work should include testing with other datasets. 13. Also mention limitations of the current study before conclusion Reviewer #4: Most of the said changes have been incorporated. This article can be considered for the publication. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Muhammad Sajid Reviewer #4: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312998.r007
Formally Accepted
22 Oct 2024 Acceptance Letter - Anirban Bhowmick, Editor PONE-D-23-39866R3 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Liang, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Anirban Bhowmick Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312998.r008

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .