MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183416950 · doi:10.1155/2021/6076828

Improved Estimation of Parkinsonian Vowel Quality through Acoustic Feature Assimilation

2021· article· en· W3183416950 on OpenAlexaff
Amr Gaballah, Vijay Parsa, Daryn Cushnie-Sparrow, Scott Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Scientific World JOURNAL · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVowelComputer scienceSpeech recognitionOverfittingCorrelationCepstrumMel-frequency cepstrumLinear regressionRegression analysisSupport vector machinePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsFeature extractionArtificial neural networkMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigated the performance of a number of acoustic measures, both individually and in combination, in predicting the perceived quality of sustained vowels produced by people impaired with Parkinson's disease (PD). Sustained vowel recordings were collected from 51 PD patients before and after the administration of the Levodopa medication. Subjective ratings of the overall vowel quality were garnered using a visual analog scale. These ratings served to benchmark the effectiveness of the acoustic measures. Acoustic predictors of the perceived vowel quality included the harmonics-to-noise ratio (HNR), smoothed cepstral peak prominence (CPP), recurrence period density entropy (RPDE), Gammatone frequency cepstral coefficients (GFCCs), linear prediction (LP) coefficients and their variants, and modulation spectrogram features. Linear regression (LR) and support vector regression (SVR) models were employed to assimilate multiple features. Different feature dimensionality reduction methods were investigated to avoid model overfitting and enhance the prediction capabilities for the test dataset. Results showed that the RPDE measure performed the best among all individual features, while a regression model incorporating a subset of features produced the best overall correlation of 0.80 between the predicted and actual vowel quality ratings. This model may therefore serve as a surrogate for auditory-perceptual assessment of Parkinsonian vowel quality. Furthermore, the model may offer the clinician a tool to predict who may benefit from Levodopa medication in terms of enhanced voice quality.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Scientific World JOURNALSame topicVoice and Speech DisordersFrench-language works237,207