Automated Severity and Breathiness Assessment of Disordered Speech Using a Speech Foundation Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we proposed a novel automated speech quality estimation model capable of evaluating perceptual dysphonia severity and breathiness in audio samples, ensuring alignment with expert-rated assessments. The proposed model integrates Whisper ASR embeddings with Mel spectrograms augmented by second-order delta features combined with a sequential-attention fusion network feature mapping path. This hybrid approach enhances the model’s sensitivity to phonetic, high level feature representation and spectral variations, enabling more accurate predictions of perceptual speech quality. A sequential-attention fusion network feature mapping module captures long-range de-pendencies through the multi-head attention network, while LSTM layers refine the learned representations by modeling temporal dynamics. Comparative analysis against state-of-the-art methods for dysphonia assessment demonstrates our model’s superior generalization across test samples. Our findings underscore the effectiveness of ASR-derived embeddings alongside the deep feature mapping structure in speech quality assessment, offering a promising pathway for advancing automated evaluation systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".