MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771631886 · doi:10.1109/pacrim.2017.8121897

Disordered speech quality estimation using linear prediction

2017· article· en· W2771631886 on OpenAlexaff
Yousef S. Ettomi Ali, Vijay Parsa, Phillip Doyle, Soulaimane Berkane

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKurtosisSpeech recognitionLinear predictionSkewnessStandard deviationComputer scienceLinear predictive codingResidualRange (aeronautics)SIGNAL (programming language)LaryngectomyCepstrumMathematicsSpeech codingLarynxStatisticsAlgorithmMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tracheoesophageal (TE) speech is generated by patients who have undergone a total laryngectomy where the larynx (voice box) is removed and replaced by a tracheoesophageal puncture. This work presents a novel low complexity algorithm to estimate the degree of severity of disordered TE speech. The proposed algorithm uses features which are computed from 32-ms voiced frames of the speech signal. A 21-st order LPC analysis is performed on each voiced frame of the speech and high order statistics (central moments: mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis) are extracted from the LPC coefficients, Cepstral coefficients and the LPC residual signal. The averages of each of these moments are computed along with the pitch average over all voiced frames yielding a total of 14 quality features. Experimental results with two sets of databases (20 and 35 TE speakers) showed that the proposed speech quality estimation approach performs well with a correlation with subjective scores in the range between 0.81 and 0.86.

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 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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVoice and Speech DisordersFrench-language works237,207