MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788985041 · doi:10.1044/2017_jslhr-s-17-0157

Deep Brain Stimulation of the Subthalamic Nucleus Parameter Optimization for Vowel Acoustics and Speech Intelligibility in Parkinson's Disease

2018· article· en· W2788985041 on OpenAlexafffund
Thea Knowles, Scott Adams, Anita Abeyesekera, Cynthia Mancinelli, Greydon Gilmore, Mandar Jog

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity HospitalWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSubthalamic nucleusAudiologyVowelDeep brain stimulationIntelligibility (philosophy)PsychologyParkinson's diseaseSentenceDysarthriaSpeech recognitionMedicineComputer scienceDiseaseArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The settings of 3 electrical stimulation parameters were adjusted in 12 speakers with Parkinson's disease (PD) with deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus (STN-DBS) to examine their effects on vowel acoustics and speech intelligibility. Method: Participants were tested under permutations of low, mid, and high STN-DBS frequency, voltage, and pulse width settings. At each session, participants recited a sentence. Acoustic characteristics of vowel production were extracted, and naive listeners provided estimates of speech intelligibility. Results: Overall, lower-frequency STN-DBS stimulation (60 Hz) was found to lead to improvements in intelligibility and acoustic vowel expansion. An interaction between speaker sex and STN-DBS stimulation was found for vowel measures. The combination of low frequency, mid to high voltage, and low to mid pulse width led to optimal speech outcomes; however, these settings did not demonstrate significant speech outcome differences compared with the standard clinical STN-DBS settings, likely due to substantial individual variability. Conclusions: Although lower-frequency STN-DBS stimulation was found to yield consistent improvements in speech outcomes, it was not found to necessarily lead to the best speech outcomes for all participants. Nevertheless, frequency may serve as a starting point to explore settings that will optimize an individual's speech outcomes following STN-DBS surgery. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.5899228.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Speech Language and Hearing ResearchSame topicVoice and Speech DisordersFrench-language works237,207