Progress Toward Estimating the Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Intelligibility: A Crowdsourced Perceptual Experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of the current study was to estimate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of sentence intelligibility in control speakers and in speakers with dysarthria due to multiple sclerosis (MS) and Parkinson's disease (PD). Method: Sixteen control speakers, 16 speakers with MS, and 16 speakers with PD were audio-recorded reading aloud sentences in habitual, clear, fast, loud, and slow speaking conditions. Two hundred forty nonexpert crowdsourced listeners heard paired conditions of the same sentence content from a speaker and indicated if one condition was more understandable than another. Listeners then used the Global Ratings of Change (GROC) Scale to indicate how much more understandable that condition was than the other. Listener ratings were compared with objective intelligibility scores obtained previously via orthographic transcriptions from nonexpert listeners. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and average magnitude of intelligibility difference per level of the GROC Scale were evaluated to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of potential cutoff scores in intelligibility for establishing thresholds of important change. Results: MCIDs derived from the ROC curves were invalid. However, the average magnitude of intelligibility difference derived valid and useful thresholds. The MCID of intelligibility was determined to be about 7% for a small amount of difference and about 15% for a large amount of difference. Conclusions: This work demonstrates the feasibility of the novel experimental paradigm for collecting crowdsourced perceptual data to estimate MCIDs. Results provide empirical evidence that clinical tools for the perception of intelligibility by nonexpert listeners could consist of three categories, which emerged from the data (“no difference,” “a little bit of difference,” “a lot of difference”). The current work is a critical step toward development of a universal language with which to evaluate changes in intelligibility as a result of neurological injury, disease progression, and speech-language therapy.
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 | 0.013 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".