Cargando…

A Comparative Investigation of Automatic Speech Recognition Platforms for Aphasia Assessment Batteries

The rehabilitation of aphasics is fundamentally based on the assessment of speech impairment. Developing methods for assessing speech impairment automatically is important due to the growing number of stroke cases each year. Traditionally, aphasia is assessed manually using one of the well-known ass...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mahmoud, Seedahmed S., Pallaud, Raphael F., Kumar, Akshay, Faisal, Serri, Wang, Yin, Fang, Qiang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9863375/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36679654
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s23020857
_version_ 1784875318521102336
author Mahmoud, Seedahmed S.
Pallaud, Raphael F.
Kumar, Akshay
Faisal, Serri
Wang, Yin
Fang, Qiang
author_facet Mahmoud, Seedahmed S.
Pallaud, Raphael F.
Kumar, Akshay
Faisal, Serri
Wang, Yin
Fang, Qiang
author_sort Mahmoud, Seedahmed S.
collection PubMed
description The rehabilitation of aphasics is fundamentally based on the assessment of speech impairment. Developing methods for assessing speech impairment automatically is important due to the growing number of stroke cases each year. Traditionally, aphasia is assessed manually using one of the well-known assessment batteries, such as the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB), the Chinese Rehabilitation Research Center Aphasia Examination (CRRCAE), and the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE). In aphasia testing, a speech-language pathologist (SLP) administers multiple subtests to assess people with aphasia (PWA). The traditional assessment is a resource-intensive process that requires the presence of an SLP. Thus, automating the assessment of aphasia is essential. This paper evaluated and compared custom machine learning (ML) speech recognition algorithms against off-the-shelf platforms using healthy and aphasic speech datasets on the naming and repetition subtests of the aphasia battery. Convolutional neural networks (CNN) and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) are the customized ML algorithms, while Microsoft Azure and Google speech recognition are off-the-shelf platforms. The results of this study demonstrated that CNN-based speech recognition algorithms outperform LDA and off-the-shelf platforms. The ResNet-50 architecture of CNN yielded an accuracy of 99.64 ± 0.26% on the healthy dataset. Even though Microsoft Azure was not trained on the same healthy dataset, it still generated comparable results to the LDA and superior results to Google’s speech recognition platform.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9863375
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98633752023-01-22 A Comparative Investigation of Automatic Speech Recognition Platforms for Aphasia Assessment Batteries Mahmoud, Seedahmed S. Pallaud, Raphael F. Kumar, Akshay Faisal, Serri Wang, Yin Fang, Qiang Sensors (Basel) Article The rehabilitation of aphasics is fundamentally based on the assessment of speech impairment. Developing methods for assessing speech impairment automatically is important due to the growing number of stroke cases each year. Traditionally, aphasia is assessed manually using one of the well-known assessment batteries, such as the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB), the Chinese Rehabilitation Research Center Aphasia Examination (CRRCAE), and the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE). In aphasia testing, a speech-language pathologist (SLP) administers multiple subtests to assess people with aphasia (PWA). The traditional assessment is a resource-intensive process that requires the presence of an SLP. Thus, automating the assessment of aphasia is essential. This paper evaluated and compared custom machine learning (ML) speech recognition algorithms against off-the-shelf platforms using healthy and aphasic speech datasets on the naming and repetition subtests of the aphasia battery. Convolutional neural networks (CNN) and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) are the customized ML algorithms, while Microsoft Azure and Google speech recognition are off-the-shelf platforms. The results of this study demonstrated that CNN-based speech recognition algorithms outperform LDA and off-the-shelf platforms. The ResNet-50 architecture of CNN yielded an accuracy of 99.64 ± 0.26% on the healthy dataset. Even though Microsoft Azure was not trained on the same healthy dataset, it still generated comparable results to the LDA and superior results to Google’s speech recognition platform. MDPI 2023-01-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9863375/ /pubmed/36679654 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s23020857 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Mahmoud, Seedahmed S.
Pallaud, Raphael F.
Kumar, Akshay
Faisal, Serri
Wang, Yin
Fang, Qiang
A Comparative Investigation of Automatic Speech Recognition Platforms for Aphasia Assessment Batteries
title A Comparative Investigation of Automatic Speech Recognition Platforms for Aphasia Assessment Batteries
title_full A Comparative Investigation of Automatic Speech Recognition Platforms for Aphasia Assessment Batteries
title_fullStr A Comparative Investigation of Automatic Speech Recognition Platforms for Aphasia Assessment Batteries
title_full_unstemmed A Comparative Investigation of Automatic Speech Recognition Platforms for Aphasia Assessment Batteries
title_short A Comparative Investigation of Automatic Speech Recognition Platforms for Aphasia Assessment Batteries
title_sort comparative investigation of automatic speech recognition platforms for aphasia assessment batteries
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9863375/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36679654
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s23020857
work_keys_str_mv AT mahmoudseedahmeds acomparativeinvestigationofautomaticspeechrecognitionplatformsforaphasiaassessmentbatteries
AT pallaudraphaelf acomparativeinvestigationofautomaticspeechrecognitionplatformsforaphasiaassessmentbatteries
AT kumarakshay acomparativeinvestigationofautomaticspeechrecognitionplatformsforaphasiaassessmentbatteries
AT faisalserri acomparativeinvestigationofautomaticspeechrecognitionplatformsforaphasiaassessmentbatteries
AT wangyin acomparativeinvestigationofautomaticspeechrecognitionplatformsforaphasiaassessmentbatteries
AT fangqiang acomparativeinvestigationofautomaticspeechrecognitionplatformsforaphasiaassessmentbatteries
AT mahmoudseedahmeds comparativeinvestigationofautomaticspeechrecognitionplatformsforaphasiaassessmentbatteries
AT pallaudraphaelf comparativeinvestigationofautomaticspeechrecognitionplatformsforaphasiaassessmentbatteries
AT kumarakshay comparativeinvestigationofautomaticspeechrecognitionplatformsforaphasiaassessmentbatteries
AT faisalserri comparativeinvestigationofautomaticspeechrecognitionplatformsforaphasiaassessmentbatteries
AT wangyin comparativeinvestigationofautomaticspeechrecognitionplatformsforaphasiaassessmentbatteries
AT fangqiang comparativeinvestigationofautomaticspeechrecognitionplatformsforaphasiaassessmentbatteries