Language-agnostic, Automated Assessment of Listeners’ Speech Recall Using Large Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speech-comprehension difficulties are common among older people. Standard speech tests do not fully capture such difficulties because the tests poorly resemble the context-rich, story-like nature of ongoing conversation and are typically available only in a country's dominant/official language (e.g., English), leading to inaccurate scores for native speakers of other languages. Assessments for naturalistic, story speech in multiple languages require accurate, time-efficient scoring. The current research leverages modern large language models (LLMs) in native English speakers and native speakers of 10 other languages to automate the generation of high-quality, spoken stories and scoring of speech recall in different languages. Participants listened to and freely recalled short stories (in quiet/clear and in babble noise) in their native language. Large language model text-embeddings and LLM prompt engineering with semantic similarity analyses to score speech recall revealed sensitivity to known effects of temporal order, primacy/recency, and background noise, and high similarity of recall scores across languages. The work overcomes limitations associated with simple speech materials and testing of closed native-speaker groups because recall data of varying length and details can be mapped across languages with high accuracy. The full automation of speech generation and recall scoring provides an important step toward comprehension assessments of naturalistic speech with clinical applicability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
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".