ArticleSpeech communication2023
Post-Processing Automatic Transcriptions with Machine Learning for Verbal Fluency Scoring.
Article in Speech communication, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To compare verbal fluency scores derived from manual transcriptions to those obtained using automatic speech recognition enhanced with machine learning classifiers. Methods: Using Amazon Web Services, we automatically transcribed verbal fluency recordings from 1400 individuals who performed both animal and letter F verbal fluency tasks. We manually adjusted timings and contents of the automatic transcriptions to obtain "gold standard" transcriptions. To make automatic scoring possible, we trained machine learning classifiers to discern between valid and invalid utterances. We then calculated and compared verbal fluency scores from the manual and automatic transcriptions. Results: For both animal and letter fluency tasks, we achieved good separation of valid versus invalid utterances. Verbal fluency scores calculated based on automatic transcriptions showed high correlation with those calculated after manual correction. Conclusion: Many techniques for scoring verbal fluency word lists require accurate transcriptions with word timings. We show that machine learning methods can be applied to improve off-the-shelf ASR for this purpose. These automatically derived scores may be satisfactory for some applications. Low correlations among some of the scores indicate the need for improvement in automatic speech recognition before a fully automatic approach can be reliably implemented.
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.