Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, and public reviews.
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorArun SPIndian Institute of Science Bangalore, Bangalore, India
- Senior EditorMichael FrankBrown University, Providence, United States of America
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
The manuscript by Yang, Wang, and Cléry presents a lightweight pipeline for real-time identification of common marmosets in a laboratory setting. Models were trained and evaluated on data derived from a family of three closely related adults and a set of juvenile twins. Freely moving animals entered an enclosed space fixed to the housing cage door, which permitted the entry of individual animals for data acquisition. Utilizing YOLOv8-nano, identification was improved through the introduction of uniquely colored collar beads. Analyses of facial similarity showed close morphological relatedness amongst individuals and highlighted the need for highly discriminative classification. Overall, the authors offer a framework for identity tracking that prioritizes real-time inference. The authors demonstrate that combining facial detection with visual markers enables adequate identity assignment under controlled laboratory conditions with minimal cross-individual misclassification.
Strengths:
(1) The proposed pipeline offers a solution for real-time identity tracking in common marmosets. Its lightweight design enables deployment across a wide range of hardware configurations. Furthermore, if similar strategies are employed, this methodology is likely adaptable for other species with minimal modification.
(2) Evaluation of closely related individuals provides a necessary stress test for the discrimination of facial identity tracking.
Weaknesses:
(1) The pipeline's reliance on controlled animal isolation and small visual markers raises questions about the approach's generalizability to unconstrained multi-animal environments. The provided confusion matrices (Figures 6-8) indicate that the most common misclassifications are background-related, possibly suggesting that detection specificity is the primary source of error. All things considered, these findings raise concerns about performance in its use in socially dynamic and visually complex environments.
(2) The manuscript claims performance comparable to that of human experimenters but provides no explicit evidence to support these claims. While it is plausible that human experimenters may be less accurate in facial recognition tasks involving closely related marmosets, the authors don't provide evidence. Moreover, while that might be the case, the color-coded beads provide a salient identity cue for the model, which complicates the interpretation of this comparison grounded in facial recognition.
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
In this study, Yang et al. develop a real-time system for automatic face detection and identification of multiple unrestrained common marmosets in a home cage setting.
Strengths:
The study aims to address an unmet need in behavioral neuroscience: the ability to non-invasively identify animals is crucial to the automated and rigorous study of neural behaviors; this is especially true for common marmosets, which are rapidly becoming a model system of choice for the study of complex social cognition. By using a YOLOv8 backbone, the study achieve human level performance, both in terms of precision and recall of the trained models.
Weaknesses:
The robustness of the system is not clear from the limited datasets presented. The use of color-coded beads undercuts the study's premise that the system achieves truly non-invasive tracking. Although the system achieves good performance in face detection, it does not perform as well for classification using faces alone (especially when the faces are similar, as in twin animals). Here, too, the color-coded beads play a key role in identity discrimination. The stated goals of the study and the actual results presented are therefore at odds.
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
In this manuscript, Yang et al introduce a new method for automatically identifying marmosets in their home cage using a supervised deep learning method that recognizes the face and colored beads on marmoset collars. The authors show a high precision rate of identifying marmosets to levels comparable to a human experimenter. The method overall seems robust at identifying marmosets at different life stages and different settings; however, given the current form, I'm struggling to see the generalizability and experimental utility of this method.
Strengths:
(1) The authors provide a near-perfect automatic identification of marmosets in their home cage.
(2) This method is robust across lightning, camera angles, etc., making it potentially useful for marmoset (and other NHP) identification outside the housing cage as well
Weaknesses:
(1) Despite the almost perfect precision, in its current form, I'm failing to see how this method can be useful to other labs.
(2) This is a nice methods manuscript, but the authors do not present results to show how their method can be used outside of identifying marmosets inside their home cages in a small field of view.
(3) Reading the manuscript is strenuous, given its repetitive nature. Consolidating and shortening the results, as well as adding some definitions to the results section, would be helpful.