MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602799059 · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00290

Identifying and Avoiding Confusion in Dialogue with People with Alzheimer's Disease

2017· article· en· W2602799059 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputational Linguistics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and dialogue systems
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersNational Institutes of HealthAlzheimer SocietyAGE-WELLCarnegie Mellon UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Pittsburgh
KeywordsComputer scienceConfusionDementiaCognitive psychologyVocabularyFunction (biology)CognitionProcess (computing)ParsingSpoken languageDecision treeArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingPsychologyDiseaseLinguisticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is an increasingly prevalent cognitive disorder in which memory, language, and executive function deteriorate, usually in that order. There is a growing need to support individuals with AD and other forms of dementia in their daily lives, and our goal is to do so through speech-based interaction. Given that 33% of conversations with people with middle-stage AD involve a breakdown in communication, it is vital that automated dialogue systems be able to identify those breakdowns and, if possible, avoid them. In this article, we discuss several linguistic features that are verbal indicators of confusion in AD (including vocabulary richness, parse tree structures, and acoustic cues) and apply several machine learning algorithms to identify dialogue-relevant confusion from speech with up to 82% accuracy. We also learn dialogue strategies to avoid confusion in the first place, which is accomplished using a partially observable Markov decision process and which obtains accuracies (up to 96.1%) that are significantly higher than several baselines. This work represents a major step towards automated dialogue systems for individuals with dementia.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.246 · 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