Validation of Articulatory Rate and Imprecision Judgments in Speech of Individuals With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Perceptual judgments of articulatory function are commonly used by speech-language pathologists to evaluate articulatory performance in individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The goal of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties (e.g., reliability, validity) of these perceptual measures to inform their application as part of a comprehensive bulbar assessment tool in ALS. Method Preexisting data from 51 individuals with ALS were obtained from a larger longitudinal study. Five independent raters provided perceptual judgments of articulatory rate and imprecision in a sentence task. Inter- and intrarater reliability of these judgments were assessed. Perceptual ratings were correlated with an acoustic measure of articulatory rate, in syllables per second, obtained from passage-reading recordings. Both perceptual and acoustic measures were correlated with gold-standard kinematic tongue and jaw movement measures, recorded from sentences using electromagnetic articulography. Results The results revealed good inter- and intrarater reliability of perceptual judgments of articulatory function. Strong correlations were observed between perceptual ratings of articulatory rate and imprecision and acoustic measures of articulatory rate and kinematic measures of tongue speed. Conclusions These findings support the clinical application of perceptual judgments of articulatory function as valid and reliable measures of underlying articulatory changes in bulbar ALS. Additional research is needed to understand the responsiveness of these measures to clinical changes in articulatory function in ALS.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".