Table 1.
Performance evaluation of action detection.
| # of fly pairs | # of events | correct positives | false negatives | # of false positives | # of false positives | # of false positives | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Behavior | in percent | per 20′ movie | per event | ||||
| Lunginga, b | 1 | 139 | 90.7 | 9.3 | 7 | 7 | 0.05 |
| Tussling | 40 | 176 | - | - | 13 | 0.33 | 0.07 |
| Wing Threata,c | 40 | 87 | 94.3 | 5.7 | 4 | 0.1 | 0.04 |
| Wing Extensiond,e | 10 | 797 | 96.7 | 3.3 | 35 | 3.5 | 0.04 |
| Circlingd,f | 10 | 422 | 99.8 | 0.2 | 18 | 1.8 | 0.04 |
| Chasingg | 6 | 400 | 98.0 | 2.0 | 4 | 0.67 | 0.01 |
a
wild-type (CS) male-male fly pairs.
b
56 additional pairs were tested and the correlation with ground-truth was 0.99 (see text).
c
118 hand-counted wing threats. 87/118 lasted longer than 0.3s. False-positives are ambiguous situations of wing threat or common wing extension.
d
wild-type (CS) male-female fly pairs.
e
906 hand-counted single wing extensions. 797/906 lasted longer than 1 s. False-positives were due to segmentation errors.
f
422/435 hand-counted circling events had a minimum length of 1 s.
g
Cha-Gal4;UAS-tra male-male fly pairs. Minimum duration 1 s.