MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392638861 · doi:10.1109/jtehm.2024.3375323

Improving Dysarthric Speech Segmentation With Emulated and Synthetic Augmentation

2024· article· en· W4392638861 on OpenAlexafffund
Saeid Alavi Naeini, Leif Simmatis, Deniz Jafari, Yana Yunusova, Babak Taati

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain InstituteToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersScience and Engineering Research CouncilToronto Rehabilitation InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthAssociated Medical ServicesParkinson CanadaWeston Brain InstituteALS Society of CanadaAGE-WELLMitacsSunnybrook Research Institute
KeywordsSpeech recognitionComputer scienceSegmentationArtificial intelligenceNatural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acoustic features extracted from speech can help with the diagnosis of neurological diseases and monitoring of symptoms over time. Temporal segmentation of audio signals into individual words is an important pre-processing step needed prior to extracting acoustic features. Machine learning techniques could be used to automate speech segmentation via automatic speech recognition (ASR) and sequence to sequence alignment. While state-of-the-art ASR models achieve good performance on healthy speech, their performance significantly drops when evaluated on dysarthric speech. Fine-tuning ASR models on impaired speech can improve performance in dysarthric individuals, but it requires representative clinical data, which is difficult to collect and may raise privacy concerns. This study explores the feasibility of using two augmentation methods to increase ASR performance on dysarthric speech: 1) healthy individuals varying their speaking rate and loudness (as is often used in assessments of pathological speech); 2) synthetic speech with variations in speaking rate and accent (to ensure more diverse vocal representations and fairness). Experimental evaluations showed that fine-tuning a pre-trained ASR model with data from these two sources outperformed a model fine-tuned only on real clinical data and matched the performance of a model fine-tuned on the combination of real clinical data and synthetic speech. When evaluated on held-out acoustic data from 24 individuals with various neurological diseases, the best performing model achieved an average word error rate of 5.7% and a mean correct count accuracy of 94.4%. In segmenting the data into individual words, a mean intersection-over-union of 89.2% was obtained against manual parsing (ground truth). It can be concluded that emulated and synthetic augmentations can significantly reduce the need for real clinical data of dysarthric speech when fine-tuning ASR models and, in turn, for speech segmentation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine→Same topicVoice and Speech Disorders→French-language works237,207→