Software Sniffs Out Rat Squeaks

Algorithms learned to sift ultrasonic rat squeaks from other noise, which could help researchers who study rodents’ emotional states. Lucy Huang reports. 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Mice and rats vocalize. To us, many of the sounds they make are ultrasonic—at too high a frequency to hear. But if we slow the calls down, they sound like squeaks. And not all squeaks are the same. The sounds that rodents make when they are excited versus disappointed can be quite different.

For example, here’s slowed-down audio of a rat drinking sugar water.

[Rat squeak clip]


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


But this rat [different squeak] got played—it got non-sweetened water after becoming accustomed to sugar water. 

“Calls around 22 kilohertz are usually associated with unhappy affect and calls around 55 kilohertz are happy affect.”

John Neumaier, a professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Washington.

“So if you tickle a rat, it puts out a lot of 55 calls. If we give them a sucrose solution, then they put out a lot of calls at 55 kilohertz.”

Being able to interpret these different calls can help researchers understand the rodent’s emotional state—which could affect the results of experiments on the animals. 

Of course, listening to rodents in real time eats up resources. To code one hour of a recording,

“It takes 10 hours, you know, because you have to slow these recordings down in order to be able to listen to them.”

To automate the process, Neumaier’s associates, Kevin Coffey and Russell Marx, used machine algorithms originally designed for self-driving cars to develop software that they call DeepSqueak. The program takes recordings of rodent squeaks and plots them by frequency and intensity. By transforming the audio to a visual representation,

"They were able to train the computer network to recognize what ultrasonic vocalization looks like and then to easily tell them apart from other kinds of noise."

The description of DeepSqueak is in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology

[Kevin R. Coffey, Russell G. Marx and John F. Neumaier, DeepSqueak: a deep learning-based system for detection and analysis of ultrasonic vocalizations

The researchers have made the software available to any other scientists working with rodents who could use this kind of analysis. 

"In my mind it will democratize this kind of research so that people can afford to do it, because it's been a huge barrier."

[Squeak noises]

—Lucy Huang

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe