ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2021
Performance of Forced-Alignment Algorithms on Children's Speech.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Tunable Forced Alignment System Based on Deep Learning: Applications to Child Speech.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2025Article
- A Pilot Study of Listening Fatigue: Impacts of Pediatric Dysarthria on Adult Listeners.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2025Article
- Speech recognition using an english multimodal corpus with integrated image and depth information.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- How Does Alignment Error Affect Automated Pronunciation Scoring in Children's Speech?Interspeech · 2024Article
- Improving Text-Independent Forced Alignment to Support Speech-Language Pathologists with Phonetic Transcription.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Relating Acoustic Measures to Listener Ratings of Children's Productions of Word-Initial /ɹ/ and /w/.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023Article
- Automation of Language Sample Analysis.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023Article
- Reproducible Speech Research With the Artificial Intelligence-Ready PERCEPT Corpora.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023Article
- Consonant-Vowel Transition Models Based on Deep Learning for Objective Evaluation of Articulation.IEEE/ACM transactions on audio, speech, and language processing · 2023Article
- Speech Development Between 30 and 119 Months in Typical Children II: Articulation Rate Growth Curves.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose Acoustic measurement of speech sounds requires first segmenting the speech signal into relevant units (words, phones, etc.). Manual segmentation is cumbersome and time consuming. Forced-alignment algorithms automate this process by aligning a transcript and a speech sample. We compared the phoneme-level alignment performance of five available forced-alignment algorithms on a corpus of child speech. Our goal was to document aligner performance for child speech researchers. Method The child speech sample included 42 children between 3 and 6 years of age. The corpus was force-aligned using the Montreal Forced Aligner with and without speaker adaptive training, triphone alignment from the Kaldi speech recognition engine, the Prosodylab-Aligner, and the Penn Phonetics Lab Forced Aligner. The sample was also manually aligned to create gold-standard alignments. We evaluated alignment algorithms in terms of accuracy (whether the interval covers the midpoint of the manual alignment) and difference in phone-onset times between the automatic and manual intervals. Results The Montreal Forced Aligner with speaker adaptive training showed the highest accuracy and smallest timing differences. Vowels were consistently the most accurately aligned class of sounds across all the aligners, and alignment accuracy increased with age for fricative sounds across the aligners too. Conclusion The best-performing aligner fell just short of human-level reliability for forced alignment. Researchers can use forced alignment with child speech for certain classes of sounds (vowels, fricatives for older children), especially as part of a semi-automated workflow where alignments are later inspected for gross errors. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14167058.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.