Validating Automatic Diadochokinesis Analysis Methods Across Dysarthria Severity and Syllable Task in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Oral diadochokinesis (DDK) is a standard dysarthria assessment task. To extract automatic and semi-automatic DDK measurements, numerous DDK analysis algorithms based on acoustic signal processing are available, including amplitude based, spectral based, and hybrid. However, these algorithms have been predominantly validated in individuals with no perceptible to mild dysarthria. The behavior of these algorithms across dysarthria severity is largely unknown. Likewise, these algorithms have not been tested equally for various syllable types. The goal of this study was to evaluate the performance of five common DDK algorithms as a function of dysarthria severity, considering syllable types. METHOD: We analyzed 282 DDK recordings of /ba/, /pa/, and /ta/ from 145 participants with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Recordings were stratified into mild, moderate, or severe dysarthria groups based on individual performance on the Speech Intelligibility Test. Analysis included manual and automatic estimation of the number of syllables, DDK rate, and cycle-to-cycle temporal variability (cTV). Validation metrics included Bland-Altman mixed-effects limits of agreement between manual and automatic syllable counts, recall and precision between manual and automatic syllable boundary detection, and Kendall's tau-b correlations between manual and algorithm-detected DDK rate and cTV. RESULTS: = 0.7-0.84) and the narrowest limits of agreement (-5.92 to 7.12 syllable difference). Moreover, this algorithm also provided the highest mean recall and precision across severity groups for /ba/ and /pa/, but with significantly more variation for/ta/. CONCLUSIONS: Algorithms based on signal energy analysis appeared to be the most robust for DDK analysis across dysarthria severity and syllable types; however, it remains prone to error against severe dysarthria and alveolar syllable context. Further development is needed to address this important issue.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".