Reproducible Speech Research With the Artificial Intelligence–Ready PERCEPT Corpora
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Publicly available speech corpora facilitate reproducible research by providing open-access data for participants who have consented/assented to data sharing among different research teams. Such corpora can also support clinical education, including perceptual training and training in the use of speech analysis tools. PURPOSE: In this research note, we introduce the PERCEPT (Perceptual Error Rating for the Clinical Evaluation of Phonetic Targets) corpora, PERCEPT-R (Rhotics) and PERCEPT-GFTA (Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation), which together contain over 36 hr of speech audio (> 125,000 syllable, word, and phrase utterances) from children, adolescents, and young adults aged 6-24 years with speech sound disorder (primarily residual speech sound disorders impacting /ɹ/) and age-matched peers. We highlight PhonBank as the repository for the corpora and demonstrate use of the associated speech analysis software, Phon, to query PERCEPT-R. A worked example of research with PERCEPT-R, suitable for clinical education and research training, is included as an appendix. Support for end users and information/descriptive statistics for future releases of the PERCEPT corpora can be found in a dedicated Slack channel. Finally, we discuss the potential for PERCEPT corpora to support the training of artificial intelligence clinical speech technology appropriate for use with children with speech sound disorders, the development of which has historically been constrained by the limited representation of either children or individuals with speech impairments in publicly available training corpora. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate the use of PERCEPT corpora, PhonBank, and Phon for clinical training and research questions appropriate to child citation speech. Increased use of these tools has the potential to enhance reproducibility in the study of speech development and disorders.
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 | 0.016 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".