MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170509092 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2004.842962

Discrimination of Pathological Voices Using a Time-Frequency Approach

2005· article· en· W2170509092 on OpenAlexafffund
Karthikeyan Umapathy, Sridhar Krishnan, Vijay Parsa, Donald G. Jamieson

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSpeech recognitionComputer scienceSegmentationOctave (electronics)VowelSpeech processingNoise (video)Pattern recognition (psychology)Speech enhancementEnergy (signal processing)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsAcousticsNoise reductionStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acoustical measures of vocal function are routinely used in the assessments of disordered voice, and for monitoring the patient's progress over the course of voice therapy. Typically, acoustic measures are extracted from sustained vowel stimuli where short-term and long-term perturbations in fundamental frequency and intensity, and the level of "glottal noise" are used to characterize the vocal function. However, acoustic measures extracted from continuous speech samples may well be required for accurate prediction of abnormal voice quality that is relevant to the client's "real world" experience. In contrast with sustained vowel research, there is relatively sparse literature on the effectiveness of acoustic measures extracted from continuous speech samples. This is partially due to the challenge of segmenting the speech signal into voiced, unvoiced, and silence periods before features can be extracted for vocal function characterization. In this paper we propose a joint time-frequency approach for classifying pathological voices using continuous speech signals that obviates the need for such segmentation. The speech signals were decomposed using an adaptive time-frequency transform algorithm, and several features such as the octave max, octave mean, energy ratio, length ratio, and frequency ratio were extracted from the decomposition parameters and analyzed using statistical pattern classification techniques. Experiments with a database consisting of continuous speech samples from 51 normal and 161 pathological talkers yielded a classification accuracy of 93.4%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations150
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicVoice and Speech DisordersFrench-language works237,207