Improving Dysarthric Speech Segmentation With Emulated and Synthetic Augmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".