Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39265154›Full record

ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2024

Automatic Speech Recognition in Primary Progressive Apraxia of Speech.

Katerina A Tetzloff, Daniela Wiepert, Hugo Botha, Joseph R Duffy, Heather M Clark, Jennifer L Whitwell, Keith A Josephs, Rene L Utianski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Katerina A TetzloffDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Daniela WiepertDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Hugo BothaDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.ORCID 0000-0003-4390-685X
Joseph R DuffyDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.ORCID 0000-0001-8206-3432
Heather M ClarkDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.ORCID 0000-0001-9697-0084
Jennifer L WhitwellDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.ORCID 0000-0002-8074-6587
Keith A JosephsDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.ORCID 0000-0003-2930-8634
Rene L UtianskiDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.ORCID 0000-0001-9519-1302

Funding

Longitudinal multi-modality imaging in progressive apraxia of speech (Diversity Supplement)R01DC012519 · NIDCD · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Jennifer Louise Whitwell · 2013 to 2026
$7.2M
The neurobiology of two distinct types of progressive apraxia of speechR01DC014942 · NIDCD · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Keith A Josephs, Rene Lynn Utianski · 2017 to 2026
$4.9M
Automated speech assessment for diagnosis of FTD spectrum disordersR01AG083832 · NIA · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Hugo Botha · 2024 to 2026
$2.4M
PIB PET Scanning in Speech and Language Based DementiasR01DC010367 · NIDCD · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI JOSEPHS, KEITH A · 2010 to 2014
$1.7M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG083832NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC010367NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012519NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014942
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTranscribing disordered speech can be useful when diagnosing motor speech disorders such as primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS), who have sound additions, deletions, and substitutions, or distortions and/or slow, segmented speech. Since transcribing speech can be a laborious process and requires an experienced listener, using automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems for diagnosis and treatment monitoring is appealing. This study evaluated the efficacy of a readily available ASR system (wav2vec 2.0) in transcribing speech of PPAOS patients to determine if the word error rate (WER) output by the ASR can differentiate between healthy speech and PPAOS and/or among its subtypes, whether WER correlates with AOS severity, and how the ASR's errors compare to those noted in manual transcriptions.

methodForty-five patients with PPAOS and 22 healthy controls were recorded repeating 13 words, 3 times each, which were transcribed manually and using wav2vec 2.0. The WER and phonetic and prosodic speech errors were compared between groups, and ASR results were compared against manual transcriptions.

resultsMean overall WER was 0.88 for patients and 0.33 for controls. WER significantly correlated with AOS severity and accurately distinguished between patients and controls but not between AOS subtypes. The phonetic and prosodic errors from the ASR transcriptions were also unable to distinguish between subtypes, whereas errors calculated from human transcriptions were. There was poor agreement in the number of phonetic and prosodic errors between the ASR and human transcriptions.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates that ASR can be useful in differentiating healthy from disordered speech and evaluating PPAOS severity but does not distinguish PPAOS subtypes. ASR transcriptions showed weak agreement with human transcriptions; thus, ASR may be a useful tool for the transcription of speech in PPAOS, but the research questions posed must be carefully considered within the context of its limitations. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.26359417.

Indexed as

Speech Recognition SoftwareAgedAphasia, Primary ProgressiveApraxiasCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhoneticsSpeechSpeech Production Measurement

Identifiers

PMID39265154
PMCPMC11427443

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.