MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312019546 · doi:10.2196/42249

Using Vocal Characteristics To Classify Psychological Distress in Adult Helpline Callers: Retrospective Observational Study

2022· article· en· W4312019546 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ravi Iyer, Maja Nedeljkovic, Denny Meyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health via Writing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistressModerationObservational studyPsychologyComputer scienceClinical psychologySpeech recognitionApplied psychologyMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Elevated psychological distress has demonstrated impacts on individuals' health. Reliable and efficient ways to detect distress are key to early intervention. Artificial intelligence has the potential to detect states of emotional distress in an accurate, efficient, and timely manner. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to automatically classify short segments of speech obtained from callers to national suicide prevention helpline services according to high versus low psychological distress and using a range of vocal characteristics in combination with machine learning approaches. METHODS: A total of 120 telephone call recordings were initially converted to 16-bit pulse code modulation format. Short variable-length segments of each call were rated on psychological distress using the distress thermometer by the responding counselor and a second team of psychologists (n=6) blinded to the initial ratings. Following this, 24 vocal characteristics were initially extracted from 40-ms speech frames nested within segments within calls. After highly correlated variables were eliminated, 19 remained. Of 19 vocal characteristics, 7 were identified and validated as predictors of psychological distress using a penalized generalized additive mixed effects regression model, accounting for nonlinearity, autocorrelation, and moderation by sex. Speech frames were then grouped using k-means clustering based on the selected vocal characteristics. Finally, component-wise gradient boosting incorporating these clusters was used to classify each speech frame according to high versus low psychological distress. Classification accuracy was confirmed via leave-one-caller-out cross-validation, ensuring that speech segments from individual callers were not used in both the training and test data. RESULTS: The sample comprised 87 female and 33 male callers. From an initial pool of 19 characteristics, 7 vocal characteristics were identified. After grouping speech frames into 2 separate clusters (correlation with sex of caller, Cramer's V =0.02), the component-wise gradient boosting algorithm successfully classified psychological distress to a high level of accuracy, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 97.39% (95% CI 96.20-98.45) and an area under the precision-recall curve of 97.52 (95% CI 95.71-99.12). Thus, 39,282 of 41,883 (93.39%) speech frames nested within 728 of 754 segments (96.6%) were classified as exhibiting low psychological distress, and 71455 of 75503 (94.64%) speech frames nested within 382 of 423 (90.3%) segments were classified as exhibiting high psychological distress. As the probability of high psychological distress increases, male callers spoke louder, with greater vowel articulation but with greater roughness (subharmonic depth). In contrast, female callers exhibited decreased vocal clarity (entropy), greater proportion of signal noise, higher frequencies, increased breathiness (spectral slope), and increased roughness of speech with increasing psychological distress. Individual caller random effects contributed 68% to risk reduction in the classification algorithm, followed by cluster configuration (23.4%), spectral slope (4.4%), and the 50th percentile frequency (4.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The high level of accuracy achieved suggests possibilities for real-time detection of psychological distress in helpline settings and has potential uses in pre-emptive triage and evaluations of counseling outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR ACTRN12622000486729; https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12622000486729.aspx.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.406
GPT teacher head0.575
Teacher spread0.168 · 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.

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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicMental Health via WritingFrench-language works237,207