MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407676918 · doi:10.2196/69457

Advances in Infant Cry Paralinguistic Classification—Methods, Implementation, and Applications: Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4407676918 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Geofrey Owino, Bernard Shibwabo Kasamani

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInfant Health and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintParalanguageComputer scienceBiologyCognitive sciencePsychologyCommunicationWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Effective communication is essential for human interaction; yet, infants can only express their needs through various types of suggestive cries. Traditional approaches of interpreting infant cries are often subjective, inconsistent, and slow, leaving gaps in timely, precise caregiving responses. A precise interpretation of infant cries can potentially provide valuable insights into the infant's health, needs, and well-being, enabling prompt medical or caregiving actions. OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to systematically review the advancements in methods, coverage, deployment schemes, and applications of infant cry classification over the last 24 years. The review focuses on the different infant cry classification techniques, feature extraction methods, and practical applications. Furthermore, we aimed to identify recent trends and directions in the field of infant cry signal processing to address both academic and practical needs. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using 9 electronic databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, JSTOR, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, PubMed, ACM, MEDLINE, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar. A total of 5904 search results were initially retrieved, with 126 studies meeting the eligibility criteria after screening by 2 independent reviewers. The methodological quality of these studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (version 2; RoB2), with 92% (n=116) of the studies indicating a low risk of bias and 8% (n=10) of the studies showing some concerns regarding bias. The overall quality assessment was performed using TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis) guidelines. The data analysis was conducted using R (version 3.64; R Foundation). RESULTS: Notable advancements in infant cry classification methods were realized, particularly from 2019 onward, using machine learning, deep learning, and hybrid approaches. Common audio features included Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients, spectrograms, pitch, duration, intensity, formants, 0-crossing rate, and chroma. Deployment methods included mobile apps and web-based platforms for real-time analysis, with 90% (n=113) of the remaining models remaining undeployed to real-world applications. Denoising techniques and federated learning were limitedly used to enhance model robustness and ensure data confidentiality from 5% (n=6) of the studies. Some of the practical applications spanned health care monitoring, diagnostics, and caregiver support. CONCLUSIONS: The evolution of infant cry classification methods has progressed from traditional classical statistical methods to machine learning models but with minimal considerations of data privacy, confidentiality, and ultimate deployment to practical use. Further research is thus proposed to develop standardized foundational audio multimodal approaches, incorporating a broader range of audio features and ensuring data confidentiality through methods such as federated learning. Furthermore, a preliminary layer is proposed for denoising the cry signal before the feature extraction stage. These improvements will enhance the accuracy, generalizability, and practical applicability of infant cry classification models in diverse health care settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.483 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive TechnologiesSame topicInfant Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207