Back

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.

2026-07-19 neurology
10.64898/2026.07.16.26358268 medRxiv
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 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.8%
2
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 9%
7.2%
3
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
34 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
4
Brain Communications
166 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
5.4%
5
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.3%
6
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.3%
7
NeuroImage: Clinical
144 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.3%
8
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.0%
9
Journal of Neural Engineering
221 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.0%
10
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.2%
50% of probability mass above
11
Neurology
50 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.2%
12
Pediatric Neurology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
13
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
14
Clinical Neurophysiology
56 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
15
Translational Psychiatry
260 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
16
Muscle & Nerve
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
17
European Journal of Neurology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
18
eClinicalMedicine
77 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
19
Scientific Data
209 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
20
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
21
Science Translational Medicine
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
22
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
23
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
24
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.0%
25
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
26
Hearing Research
54 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
27
Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease
50 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
28
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
29
Sensors
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
30
IEEE Access
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%