Investigating Acoustic and Psycholinguistic Predictors of Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: Modeling Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: About one-third of older adults aged 65 years and older often have mild cognitive impairment or dementia. Acoustic and psycho-linguistic features derived from conversation may be of great diagnostic value because speech involves verbal memory and cognitive and neuromuscular processes. The relative decline in these processes, however, may not be linear and remains understudied. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to establish associations between cognitive abilities and various attributes of speech and natural language production. To date, the majority of research has been cross-sectional, relying mostly on data from structured interactions and restricted to textual versus acoustic analyses. METHODS: In a sample of 71 older (mean age 83.3, SD 7.0 years) community-dwelling adults who completed qualitative interviews and cognitive testing, we investigated the performance of both acoustic and psycholinguistic features associated with cognitive deficits contemporaneously and at a 1-2 years follow up (mean follow-up time 512.3, SD 84.5 days). RESULTS: -scores 0.73-0.86) and sensitivity (up to 0.90) in estimating cognitive deficits across multiple domains. Performance remained high when acoustic and psycholinguistic features were used to predict follow-up cognitive performance. The psycholinguistic features that were most successful at classifying high cognitive impairment reflected vocabulary richness, the quantity of speech produced, and the fragmentation of speech, whereas the analogous top-ranked acoustic features reflected breathing and nonverbal vocalizations such as giggles or laughter. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that both acoustic and psycholinguistic features extracted from qualitative interviews may be reliable markers of cognitive deficits in late life.
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".