Automated Detection of Motor Speech Disorders and Subtype Classification
Wang, F.; Utianski, R. L.; Barnard, L. R.; Stricker, J. L.; Clark, H. M.; Meade, G. F.; Jones, D. T.; Whitwell, J. L.; Josephs, K. A.; Duffy, J. R.; Botha, H.
Show abstract
Motor speech disorders (MSDs) are early markers of neurological disease, but expert perceptual analysis is rarely available outside specialized centers. Automated speech analysis offers a scalable alternative, yet prior studies have not systematically compared modeling approaches or assessed clinically relevant metrics in independent datasets. This study compared static acoustic features, articulatory informed Phonet features, and self-supervised pretrained models for binary and multi label MSD classification. We trained and evaluated models on 583 speech samples using speaker level splits. Baseline models included logistic regression and Gated Recurrent Units (GRUs) trained on eGeMAPS and MFCCs. We extracted three types of Phonet derived features and evaluated pretrained HuBERT and SSAST models in frozen, partially fine-tuned, and fully fine-tuned configurations. Binary classification distinguished MSDs from controls, while multi label classification identified six MSD subtypes. Models were assessed using validation AUC, and cut points were tested on two independent datasets. Pretrained and Phonet based models substantially outperformed static acoustic features. In binary classification, HuBERT achieved the highest AUC (0.95), while compact Phonet derived GRUs achieved comparable performance (up to 0.94). These models generalized well to independent datasets, maintaining high sensitivity (0.94) and specificity (0.97). In multi label classification, Phonet models achieved the highest macro average AUC (0.86), but threshold-based subtype performance declined on unseen data. Automated MSD detection is feasible and clinically promising. Binary classification generalized well, whereas multi label classification showed limited threshold stability across datasets.
Matching journals
The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- A Machine-Learning Based Objective Measure for ALS Disease Severity 94%
- Quantifying Device Type and Handedness Biases in a Remote Parkinson’s Disease AI-Powered Assessment 91%
- Crowdsourcing digital health measures to predict Parkinson's disease severity: the Parkinson's Disease Digital Biomarker DREAM Challenge 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Automating intended target identification for paraphasias in discourse using a large language model 94%
- Multidisciplinary assessment and interventions for childhood auditory processing disorder (APD) and listening difficulties (LiD) 90%
- Towards an individualised neural assessment of receptive language in children 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Reliable Monitoring of Respiratory Function with Home Spirometry in People Living with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis 90%
- Deep learning using EEG spectrograms for prognosis in idiopathic rapid eye movement behavior disorder (RBD) 90%
- Application of Digital Tools and Artificial Intelligence to the Myasthenia Gravis Core Examination 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.