Acoustic-based automatic speech intelligibility scoring using deep neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human-generated measures of speech intelligibility are time-intensive methods for assessing the intelligibility of speech. The purpose of the present study is to automate the assessment of speech intelligibility by developing a deep neural network that estimates a standardized intelligibility score based on acoustic input. We extracted Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients from the UW/NU IEEE sentence corpus which had been manipulated with three signal-to-noise ratios (−2, 0, 2 dB). We obtained listener transcriptions from the UAW speech intelligibility dataset and calculated the Levenshtein distance between the transcriptions and the speaker's prompt. The neural network was trained to predict the Levenshtein distance given MFCC representations of sentences. We use tenfold cross-validation to verify the accuracy of the model and investigate the correlation of the model predictions with the average human responses. We also compare our model’s accuracy with the Levenshtein distance generated by transcriptions produced by the DeepSpeech ASR model. This study investigates the reliability of deep neural networks as an alternative to human-based inference in quantifying the intelligibility of speech. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches to assessing speech intelligibility.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".