Vocal Tract Representation in the Recognition of Cerebral Palsied Speech
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this study, the authors explored articulatory information as a means of improving the recognition of dysarthric speech by machine. METHOD: Data were derived chiefly from the TORGO database of dysarthric articulation (Rudzicz, Namasivayam, & Wolff, 2011) in which motions of various points in the vocal tract are measured during speech. In the 1st experiment, the authors provided a baseline model indicating a relatively low performance with traditional automatic speech recognition (ASR) using only acoustic data from dysarthric individuals. In the 2nd experiment, the authors used various measures of entropy (statistical disorder) to determine whether characteristics of dysarthric articulation can reduce uncertainty in features of dysarthric acoustics. These findings led to the 3rd experiment, in which recorded dysarthric articulation was directly encoded into the speech recognition process. RESULTS: The authors found that 18.3% of the statistical disorder in the acoustics of speakers with dysarthria can be removed if articulatory parameters are known. Using articulatory models reduces phoneme recognition errors relatively by up to 6% for speakers with dysarthria in speaker-dependent systems. CONCLUSIONS: Articulatory knowledge is useful in reducing rates of error in ASR for speakers with dysarthria and in reducing statistical uncertainty of their acoustic signals. These findings may help to guide clinical decisions related to the use of ASR in the future.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".