Automatic prediction of intelligible speaking rate for individuals with ALS from speech acoustic and articulatory samples
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This research aimed to automatically predict intelligible speaking rate for individuals with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) based on speech acoustic and articulatory samples.Method: Twelve participants with ALS and two normal subjects produced a total of 1831 phrases. NDI Wave system was used to collect tongue and lip movement and acoustic data synchronously. A machine learning algorithm (i.e. support vector machine) was used to predict intelligible speaking rate (speech intelligibility × speaking rate) from acoustic and articulatory features of the recorded samples.Result: Acoustic, lip movement, and tongue movement information separately, yielded a R2 of 0.652, 0.660, and 0.678 and a Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) of 41.096, 41.166, and 39.855 words per minute (WPM) between the predicted and actual values, respectively. Combining acoustic, lip and tongue information we obtained the highest R2 (0.712) and the lowest RMSE (37.562 WPM).Conclusion: The results revealed that our proposed analyses predicted the intelligible speaking rate of the participant with reasonably high accuracy by extracting the acoustic and/or articulatory features from one short speech sample. With further development, the analyses may be well-suited for clinical applications that require automatic speech severity prediction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it