ArticlePloS one2024
Computing nasalance with MFCCs and Convolutional Neural Networks.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Robust nasality representation learning for cleft palate-related velopharyngeal dysfunction screening in real-world settings.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nasalance is a valuable clinical biomarker for hypernasality. It is computed as the ratio of acoustic energy emitted through the nose to the total energy emitted through the mouth and nose (eNasalance). A new approach is proposed to compute nasalance using Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) trained with Mel-Frequency Cepstrum Coefficients (mfccNasalance). mfccNasalance is evaluated by examining its accuracy: 1) when the train and test data are from the same or from different dialects; 2) with test data that differs in dynamicity (e.g. rapidly produced diadochokinetic syllables versus short words); and 3) using multiple CNN configurations (i.e. kernel shape and use of 1 × 1 pointwise convolution). Dual-channel Nasometer speech data from healthy speakers from different dialects: Costa Rica, more(+) nasal, Spain and Chile, less(-) nasal, are recorded. The input to the CNN models were sequences of 39 MFCC vectors computed from 250 ms moving windows. The test data were recorded in Spain and included short words (-dynamic), sentences (+dynamic), and diadochokinetic syllables (+dynamic). The accuracy of a CNN model was defined as the Spearman correlation between the mfccNasalance for that model and the perceptual nasality scores of human experts. In the same-dialect condition, mfccNasalance was more accurate than eNasalance independently of the CNN configuration; using a 1 × 1 kernel resulted in increased accuracy for +dynamic utterances (p < .000), though not for -dynamic utterances. The kernel shape had a significant impact for -dynamic utterances (p < .000) exclusively. In the different-dialect condition, the scores were significantly less accurate than in the same-dialect condition, particularly for Costa Rica trained models. We conclude that mfccNasalance is a flexible and useful alternative to eNasalance. Future studies should explore how to optimize mfccNasalance by selecting the most adequate CNN model as a function of the dynamicity of the target speech data.
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.