A comparison of techniques for measuring intelligibility of dysarthric speech

Yorkston, Kathryn M.; Beukelman, David R.

doi:10.1016/0021-9924(78)90024-2

Cited by 141 publications

(152 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

140

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Factors related to the speaker include severity of the intelligibility impairment (Yorkston & Beukelman, 1978), and rate of speech (Yorkston & Beukelman, 1981a). The type of speech stimulus used can affect the intelligibility scores obtained.…”

Section: Intelligibilitvmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Visual Information on the Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech

Keintz

Bunton

Hoit

2007

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To examine the influence of visual information on speech intelligibility for a group of speakers with dysarthria associated with Parkinson’s disease. Method Eight speakers with Parkinson’s disease and dysarthria were recorded while they read sentences. Speakers performed a concurrent manual task to facilitate typical speech production. Twenty listeners (10 experienced and 10 inexperienced) transcribed sentences while watching and listening to videotapes of the speakers (auditory-visual mode) and while only listening to the speakers (auditory-only mode). Results Significant main effects were found for both presentation mode and speaker. Auditory-visual scores were significantly higher than auditory-only scores for the 3 speakers with the lowest intelligibility scores. No significant difference was found between the 2 listener groups. Conclusions The findings suggest that clinicians should consider both auditory-visual and auditory-only intelligibility measures in speakers with Parkinson’s disease to determine the most effective strategies aimed at evaluation and treatment of speech intelligibility decrements.

show abstract

Section: Intelligibilitvmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Visual Information on the Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech

Keintz

Bunton

Hoit

2007

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yorkston and Beukelman [6] compared three different types of response formats: transcription, sentence completion, and multiple choice. In transcription, listeners were asked to transcribe the word or words that have been spoken.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Humans and Automatic Speech Recognition Systems in Recognizing Dysarthric Speech

Mengistu

Rudzicz

2011

Advances in Artificial Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Speech is a complex process that requires control and coordination of articulation, breathing, voicing, and prosody. Dysarthria is a manifestation of an inability to control and coordinate one or more of these aspects, which results in poorly articulated and hardly intelligible speech. Hence individuals with dysarthria are rarely understood by human listeners. In this paper, we compare and evaluate how well dysarthric speech can be recognized by an automatic speech recognition system (ASR) and naïve adult human listeners. The results show that despite the encouraging performance of ASR systems, and contrary to the claims in other studies, on average human listeners perform better in recognizing single-word dysarthric speech. In particular, the mean word recognition accuracy of speaker-adapted monophone ASR systems on stimuli produced by six dysarthric speakers is 68.39% while the mean percentage correct response of 14 naïve human listeners on the same speech is 79.78% as evaluated using single-word multiple-choice intelligibility test.

show abstract

“…Because these are by definition subjective, they should preferably be collected from multiple raters, after which average ratings and reliability measures are calculated. Subjective ratings of intelligibility can take many different forms [7,8,9]. A common practice is to ask raters to indicate the degree of intelligibility on a scale, such as an equal-appearing interval scale (or Likert scale; e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intelligibility of Disordered Speech: Global and Detailed Scores

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measuring the intelligibility of disordered speech is a common practice in both clinical and research contexts. Over the years various methods have been proposed and studied, including methods relying on subjective ratings by human judges, and objective methods based on speech technology. Many of these methods measure speech intelligibility at the speaker or utterance level. While this may be satisfactory for some purposes, more detailed evaluations might be required in other cases such as diagnosis and measuring or comparing the outcomes of different types of therapy (by humans or computer programs). In the current paper we investigate intelligibility ratings at three different levels of granularity: utterance, word, and subword level. In a web experiment 50 speech fragments produced by seven dysarthric speakers were rated by 36 listeners in three ways: a score per utterance on a Visual Analogue and a Likert scale, and an orthographic transcription. The latter was used to obtain word and subword (grapheme and phoneme) level ratings using automatic alignment and conversion methods. The implemented phoneme scoring method proved feasible, reliable, and provided a more sensitive and informative measure of intelligibility. Possible implications for clinical practice and research are discussed.

show abstract

A comparison of techniques for measuring intelligibility of dysarthric speech

Cited by 141 publications

References 4 publications

Influence of Visual Information on the Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech

Influence of Visual Information on the Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech

Comparing Humans and Automatic Speech Recognition Systems in Recognizing Dysarthric Speech

Intelligibility of Disordered Speech: Global and Detailed Scores

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About