A Multi-modal Approach to Dysarthria Detection and Severity Assessment Using Speech and Text Information

Anil Kumar Vuppala; Anuprabha M; Krishna Gurugubelli; V Kesavaraj

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 23 references

A Multi-modal Approach to Dysarthria Detection and Severity Assessment Using Speech and Text Information

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read By fusing speech with the orthographic text of the spoken word through cross-attention, the paper reports dysarthria detection accuracy of 99.53% and severity assessment accuracy of 98.12% in speaker-dependent settings, with gains over…

desk verdict A sensible first attempt at speech+text fusion for dysarthria, undermined largely by a single arbitrary speaker split and a SOTA claim that their own table contradicts. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16874 v4 pith:OBX3I3JN submitted 2024-12-22 cs.AI eess.AS

Anuprabha M , Krishna Gurugubelli , V Kesavaraj , Anil Kumar Vuppala This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AIeess.AS

keywords dysarthriadetectionseverityassessmentmultimodalspeechandtextcross-attentionUA-Speechdatabasespeaker-independentevaluationpronunciationdeviationanalysis

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that adding the written form of the spoken word as a second input lets a neural model detect dysarthria and judge its severity more accurately than speech alone can. The text supplies a reference for how the word should be pronounced, so the model can learn where a speaker's acoustic output deviates from the expected norm. On the UA-Speech database, a cross-attention fusion of speech and text reaches 99.53% detection accuracy in the speaker-dependent setting and 93.20% in the speaker-independent seen-words setting, compared with 95.38% and 89.61% for speech-only models. Severity assessment improves to 98.12% (speaker-dependent) and 51.97% (speaker-independent). If these results hold, objective screening tools could use a known prompt transcript as an extra signal for clinical assessment.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the cross-attention fusion layer. A mel-spectrogram is converted by two CNN layers, batch normalization, and a Bi-GRU into a speech embedding; the character sequence of the target word is embedded and passed through a Bi-GRU into a text embedding. In cross-attention, the speech embedding acts as key and value and the text embedding acts as query, producing a context vector that models $P(S,T|C)$. The text embedding functions as the linguistic ground truth for the intended utterance, letting the model quantify pronunciation deviations; dense layers then classify the context vector into healthy versus dysarthric, or into very low, low, medium, and high severity.

What would settle it

Run the same severity classification under leave-one-speaker-out cross-validation, or under many random stratified splits, and compare the speech-text and speech-only models; if the speech-text gain does not hold on most folds, or if a different split moves the SID-1 severity accuracy near the speech-only level, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that speech and text should be treated as complementary modalities in dysarthria assessment, and that a cross-attention layer explicitly modeling the joint likelihood $P(S,T|C)$ is the right way to combine them. Speech embeddings from a CNN/Bi-GRU on mel-spectrograms serve as keys and values; text embeddings from a character-level Bi-GRU serve as queries, so the model attends to how the acoustics realize the intended characters. The paper argues this is the first time speech and text have been combined for dysarthric detection and severity assessment. Across the UA-Speech settings, the fused model beats the speech-only counterpart in five of six comparisons, with the sole exception being detection on unseen words, where accuracy falls to 85.30% from 87.76%.

Load-bearing premise

The severity-assessment result rests on a single fixed division of the 15 dysarthric speakers into 8 training and 7 test speakers, with no repeated splits or cross-validation, so the reported severity accuracies could be an artifact of that one split.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A clinician-facing tool could accept an audio clip plus the known prompt text and return both a dysarthria/no-dysarthria decision and a severity level without needing a new recording protocol.
Because the text is already known in many bedside assessments, the extra modality adds no patient burden and little data-collection cost.
The word-group analysis implies that easy, familiar words such as digits and commands are best for separating healthy from dysarthric speech, while uncommon words with complex articulatory demands are best for separating severity levels.
The SID-2 result shows the benefit is not unconditional: detection accuracy drops when test words are unseen, so text helps most when the model has seen the target words during training.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A testable extension: systematically corrupt or drop characters in the text input; if the improvement really comes from text as a pronunciation reference, detection and severity accuracy should degrade monotonically with the noise level.
The same cross-attention design could be applied to continuous speech using ASR transcripts, but then recognition errors become part of the input; this paper's isolated-word setting sidesteps that issue.
The severity split used here is a single fixed partition; averaging over many partitions would tell whether the 51.97% SID-1 severity figure is stable or split-dependent.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Quick take: the core idea is reasonable — use the orthographic transcription as a lexical reference so the model can compare what was said against what should have been said — and as far as I can tell this is the first time speech and text have been fused with cross-attention for dysarthria detection and severity assessment. That part is real. The architecture is standard (CNN + Bi-GRU encoders, cross-attention), but the application is not just renumbering an old equation.

What the paper does well: systematic comparison of speech-only vs speech-text across SD, SID-1, and SID-2; the word-group analysis gives some interpretability, and the finding that difficult uncommon words benefit most in severity assessment is the most interesting result in the paper. The text input is the intended orthographic form, so there's no circularity: it's a reference, not a hidden label.

Soft spots are real, and one is load-bearing. Severity assessment in SID-1 rests on a single fixed split: 8 dysarthric speakers for training, 7 for testing, chosen to balance classes in training but not in test. With 15 speakers in 4 severity classes, different splits can swing accuracy by several points. The key severity gain in Table II, 51.97 vs 49.14, is a 2.83-point gap; the stress-test note is right that this could reverse under a different split. It's not just a missing error bar — the whole 51.97% headline number is one arbitrary split. Table III reports 51.47 for what should be the same SID-1 severity condition, and the paper doesn't explain the discrepancy. Also, the SOTA comparison in Section IV-C says the model beats wav2vec by 1.72%, but Table IV shows wav2vec at 93.95 vs their 93.20 in SID-1 — the claim doesn't match their own table. The SID-2 detection drop (87.76 to 85.30) is acknowledged but left unexplained. No error bars, no significance tests, no code release.

Where does that leave it? The detection results are large and consistent enough that the multi-modal idea probably has some value. The severity claim, which is half the paper, is not yet supported by the evidence as presented. This deserves serious review — it's a legitimate new application on a standard benchmark — but the authors need to fix the severity evaluation (repeated cross-validation, report class balance and variance), correct the SOTA comparison, and ideally release code.

If I were handling it, I'd send it to review and tell the authors to come back with a defensible SID severity evaluation.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multimodal dysarthria detection and severity-assessment framework that combines speech (mel-spectrogram through a CNN-BiGRU encoder) and text (character-level embeddings through a BiGRU encoder) via a cross-attention mechanism, with the text serving as an orthographic reference for expected pronunciation. Experiments on the UA-Speech corpus are reported under three settings (SD, SID-1, SID-2) for both binary detection and four-class severity classification. The authors report accuracy gains for speech-text over speech-only in five of six condition-task cells, including 99.53% vs 95.38% for SD detection and 93.20% vs 89.61% for SID-1 detection, and they compare against several prior speech-only systems. The central claim is that adding text information improves detection and severity assessment and that this is the first such combination for these tasks.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the contribution is useful and timely: using the known orthographic form as a linguistic reference for measuring pronunciation deviation is a simple, interpretable idea that could generalize to other pathological-speech tasks. The word-group analysis in Table III, showing different behavior for common vs uncommon words, is a genuinely interesting interpretability result. The paper also makes a reproducibility-friendly choice by using a public database (UA-Speech). However, the evidence is currently not strong enough for the severity claim: the load-bearing severity numbers rest on a single unvalidated speaker split, two tables give inconsistent values for the same condition, and no variance or significance estimates are supplied anywhere in the paper. The detection claim is better supported in proportion to its larger speaker pool, but the SID-2 detection decline is acknowledged without a mechanistic explanation.

major comments (4)

[Section III-B, Table II, Table III] The severity-assessment evaluation rests on a single fixed 8/7 speaker split, described as chosen to 'ensure equal number of speakers across severity levels during training.' This is not statistically sound: 8 speakers cannot be balanced across four severity levels in a way that also balances the 7-speaker test set, no class counts are reported, and no repeated splits, cross-validation, or variance estimates are given. Because each test speaker contributes a substantial fraction of the test utterances, the reported SID-1 severity gap of 2.83 percentage points (51.97% vs 49.14% in Table II) is within plausible split-to-split variation, so the central claim that text helps severity assessment is not yet supported. Additionally, Table III reports 51.47% for the same SID-1 severity condition with speech-text, which is inconsistent with the 51.97% in Table II; this internal inconsistency must be resolved by reporting a fully specified evaluation protocol with repeated splits and confidence intervals.
[Section IV-C, Table IV] The state-of-the-art comparison undermines the unconditional claim that the proposed multi-modal model 'outperforms the speech-only models.' In SID-2 detection, the proposed model achieves 85.30%, which is substantially lower than the PE-SFCC+i-vector system (93.64%) and the wav2vec+SVM system (93.95%) listed in the same table. The paper acknowledges a decline relative to the speech-only model in Section IV-A but does not explain why text information hurts detection on unseen words, nor does it contextualize this failure against the SOTA systems. For the central claim to hold, the authors need to analyze this failure mode and either temper the conclusion or demonstrate that the SID-2 detection result is not due to a methodological artifact (e.g., text overfitting to word identity rather than severity-relevant information).
[Section IV, Tables II and III] All reported accuracies are point estimates from single training runs with no error bars, no repeated seeds, and no significance tests. Given the small speaker pool (15 dysarthric speakers for severity, 26 total for detection) and the large variance induced by LOSO and split-based evaluation, the absolute improvements claimed for text integration (e.g., 0.62% for SD severity, 2.83% for SID-1 severity, 2.71% for SID-2 severity) could easily arise from random variation. The paper should report mean and standard deviation over multiple runs (or over LOSO folds), and ideally a paired significance test, for every condition in Tables II and III.
[Section III-B, Table I] The definitions of the experimental settings are insufficiently precise. Table I shows the identical word distribution (155 common + 200 uncommon in train; 100 uncommon in test) for the SD and SID-2 settings, but the text does not explicitly state that SD and SID-2 differ only in the speaker split while sharing the same word split. The SID-1 setting is described as using 'All words' in both train and test, which means the test words are seen during training; the implications of this overlap for the claimed 'seen words' generalization are not discussed. The paper should state exactly which speakers, words, and blocks are used in each setting, and whether severity models share the same word splits as detection models.

minor comments (5)

[Section II-A, Eqs. (2)-(4)] Equations (2)-(4) are a standard Bayes expansion and do not constrain the subsequent neural architecture; the cross-attention model is not derived from the factorized likelihood in Eq. (4). Consider labeling this section as motivation rather than a formal probabilistic model, or remove the equations if they are not used in the design.
[Section III-C, Fig. 1] The text says 'speech embedding acts as both the key and value, while the text embedding acts as the query.' This configuration should be justified: text-as-query is a design choice, and the paper does not report any ablation over the alternative (speech-as-query). A brief ablation or a caveat would strengthen the architectural claim.
[Section IV-B, Table III] The column labels 'B1 all', 'B2 all', and 'B3 all' in Table III are not defined in the text. Please add a sentence explaining that these refer to the three blocks of the UA-Speech database.
[Section IV-C, Table IV] In the severity-assessment block, the column header 'SID' conflates SID-1 and SID-2; the text says an improvement of 0.19% is obtained for 'SID', but the comparison uses the SID-2 value of 57.42% from Table II. Please specify which SID setting is used for each comparison.
[Section III-B] The sentence '26 models are trained for each SID setting by following Leave One Speaker Out (LOSO) cross validation' applies to detection, but it is unclear whether the severity-assessment models also use LOSO or only the fixed 8/7 split. Please clarify the exact training protocol for each task.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model is trained on labeled speech and text inputs and evaluated on held-out speakers/words; no fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or definitional identity forces the reported accuracies.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than analytical. The Bayesian decision rule in Equations (1)-(4) is a notational framing and is not used to compute the reported numbers; the system is a standard supervised CNN/Bi-GRU/cross-attention classifier trained with cross-entropy and evaluated on UA-Speech data. The text modality is the orthographic transcription of the same keyword for both healthy and dysarthric speakers, so it cannot itself determine the class label; the cross-attention module uses speech as key/value and text as query, and the outcome must be learned from labeled examples. No parameter is fitted to the test-set accuracies, and no claim is derived by definition from the input features. The only author-overlapping citation, [5], is used as a baseline comparison method, not as a load-bearing premise or a uniqueness argument. The concerns about Section III-B's single 8/7 speaker split for severity assessment, the absence of repeated splits or variance estimates, and the internal inconsistency between the SID-1 severity figures in Tables II (51.97%) and III (51.47%) are legitimate evaluation-reliability or correctness issues, but they do not constitute circularity: a potentially unrepresentative test split does not make the model's prediction equivalent to its input. Similarly, the claim that text provides a 'reference linguistic knowledge' is a modeling hypothesis, not a renamed target variable. The central results are self-contained empirical comparisons against speech-only models and external state-of-the-art systems on a public dataset.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard supervised learning assumptions plus a specific, unjustified speaker split for severity assessment. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption UA-Speech severity labels and intelligibility ratings are correct ground truth.
The evaluation treats the database labels as accurate without independent verification (Section III-A).
domain assumption Mel-spectrograms and character-level sequences contain sufficient information for the detection and severity classification tasks.
The architecture assumes these modalities capture the relevant acoustic and linguistic cues (Section II-B).
domain assumption The cross-attention mechanism with speech as key/value and text as query can learn representations that separate severity classes.
The choice of attention arrangement is heuristic; no formal support is given (Section II-B).
ad hoc to paper The fixed split of 8 dysarthric speakers for training and 7 for testing yields a stable and representative severity estimate.
This split is taken from [19] without repetition, cross-validation, or reporting of class balance, yet the headline SID-1 severity number depends on it (Section III-B).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Multi-modal Approach to Dysarthria Detection and Severity Assessment Using Speech and Text Information." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OBX3I3JN

@misc{pith2026241216874,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Multi-modal Approach to Dysarthria Detection and Severity Assessment Using Speech and Text Information},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OBX3I3JN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16874}
}

read the original abstract

Automatic detection and severity assessment of dysarthria are crucial for delivering targeted therapeutic interventions to patients. While most existing research focuses primarily on speech modality, this study introduces a novel approach that leverages both speech and text modalities. By employing cross-attention mechanism, our method learns the acoustic and linguistic similarities between speech and text representations. This approach assesses specifically the pronunciation deviations across different severity levels, thereby enhancing the accuracy of dysarthric detection and severity assessment. All the experiments have been performed using UA-Speech dysarthric database. Improved accuracies of 99.53% and 93.20% in detection, and 98.12% and 51.97% for severity assessment have been achieved when speaker-dependent and speaker-independent, unseen and seen words settings are used. These findings suggest that by integrating text information, which provides a reference linguistic knowledge, a more robust framework has been developed for dysarthric detection and assessment, thereby potentially leading to more effective diagnoses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16874 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

Disorders of communication: dysarthria,

Pam Enderby, “Disorders of communication: dysarthria,” Handbook of Clinical Neurology, vol. 110, pp. 273–281, 2013

work page 2013
[2]

Toward phonetic intelligibility testing in dysarthria,

Ray D Kent, Gary Weismer, Jane F Kent, and John C Rosenbek, “Toward phonetic intelligibility testing in dysarthria,” Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 482–499, 1989

work page 1989
[3]

Speech-language patholo- gists’ use of intelligibility measures in adults with dysarthria,

Naomi Gurevich and Sydney L Scamihorn, “Speech-language patholo- gists’ use of intelligibility measures in adults with dysarthria,” American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology , vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 873–892, 2017

work page 2017
[4]

Spectro-temporal representation of speech for intelligibility assessment of dysarthria,

HM Chandrashekar, Veena Karjigi, and N Sreedevi, “Spectro-temporal representation of speech for intelligibility assessment of dysarthria,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 390–399, 2019

work page 2019
[5]

Perceptually enhanced single frequency filtering for dysarthric speech detection and intelligi- bility assessment,

Krishna Gurugubelli and Anil Kumar Vuppala, “Perceptually enhanced single frequency filtering for dysarthric speech detection and intelligi- bility assessment,” in Proc. ICASSP. IEEE, 2019, pp. 6410–6414

work page 2019
[6]

Classification of dysarthric speech according to the severity of impairment: an analysis of acoustic features,

Bassam Ali Al-Qatab and Mumtaz Begum Mustafa, “Classification of dysarthric speech according to the severity of impairment: an analysis of acoustic features,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 18183–18194, 2021

work page 2021
[7]

Wav2vec-based detection and severity level classification of dysarthria from speech,

Farhad Javanmardi, Saska Tirronen, Manila Kodali, Sudarsana Reddy Kadiri, and Paavo Alku, “Wav2vec-based detection and severity level classification of dysarthria from speech,” in Proc. ICASSP. IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

work page 2023
[8]

Whisper features for dysarthric severity-level classi- fication,

Siddharth Rathod, Monil Charola, Akshat V ora, Yash Jogi, and He- mant A. Patil, “Whisper features for dysarthric severity-level classi- fication,” in Proc. INTERSPEECH, 2023, pp. 1523–1527

work page 2023

Show all 23 references

[9]

Im- proved speaker independent dysarthria intelligibility classification using deepspeech posteriors,

Ayush Tripathi, Swapnil Bhosale, and Sunil Kumar Kopparapu, “Im- proved speaker independent dysarthria intelligibility classification using deepspeech posteriors,” in Proc. ICASSP. IEEE, 2020, pp. 6114–6118

2020
[10]

Automated dysarthria severity classification: A study on acoustic features and deep learning tech- niques,

Amlu Anna Joshy and Rajeev Rajan, “Automated dysarthria severity classification: A study on acoustic features and deep learning tech- niques,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 30, pp. 1147–1157, 2022

2022
[11]

Markerless analysis of articulatory movements in patients with parkinson’s disease,

Andrea Bandini, Silvia Orlandi, Fabio Giovannelli, Andrea Felici, Mas- simo Cincotta, Daniela Clemente, Paola Vanni, Gaetano Zaccara, and Claudia Manfredi, “Markerless analysis of articulatory movements in patients with parkinson’s disease,” Journal of Voice, vol. 30, no. 6, p...

2016
[12]

Assessing speech intelligibility of pathological speech in sentences and word lists: The contribution of phoneme-level measures,

Wei Xue, Roeland van Hout, Catia Cucchiarini, and Helmer Strik, “Assessing speech intelligibility of pathological speech in sentences and word lists: The contribution of phoneme-level measures,” Journal of Communication Disorders, vol. 102, pp. 106301, 2023

2023
[13]

Mser: Multimodal speech emotion recognition using cross- attention with deep fusion,

Mustaqeem Khan, Wail Gueaieb, Abdulmotaleb El Saddik, and Soonil Kwon, “Mser: Multimodal speech emotion recognition using cross- attention with deep fusion,” Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 245, pp. 122946, 2024

2024
[14]

Automatic assessment of dysarthric severity level using audio-video cross-modal approach in deep learning,

Han Tong, Hamid Sharifzadeh, and Ian McLoughlin, “Automatic assessment of dysarthric severity level using audio-video cross-modal approach in deep learning,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2020, pp. 4786–4790

2020
[15]

Automatic assessment of dysarthria using audio-visual vowel graph attention network,

Xiaokang Liu, Xiaoxia Du, Juan Liu, Rongfeng Su, Manwa Lawrence Ng, Yumei Zhang, Yudong Yang, Shaofeng Zhao, Lan Wang, and Nan Yan, “Automatic assessment of dysarthria using audio-visual vowel graph attention network,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03254 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[16]

Linguistic-acoustic similarity based accent shift for accent recognition,

Qijie Shao, Jinghao Yan, Jian Kang, Pengcheng Guo, Xian Shi, Pengfei Hu, and Lei Xie, “Linguistic-acoustic similarity based accent shift for accent recognition,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2022, pp. 3719–3723

2022
[17]

Dysarthric speech database for universal access research.,

Heejin Kim, Mark Hasegawa-Johnson, Adrienne Perlman, Jon R Gun- derson, Thomas S Huang, Kenneth L Watkin, and Simone Frame, “Dysarthric speech database for universal access research.,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2008, vol. 2008, pp. 1741–1744

2008
[18]

Attention is all you need,

A Vaswani, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30, 2017

2017
[19]

Dysarthria severity assessment using squeeze-and-excitation networks,

Amlu Anna Joshy and Rajeev Rajan, “Dysarthria severity assessment using squeeze-and-excitation networks,” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, vol. 82, pp. 104606, 2023

2023
[20]

A novel approach for intelligibility assessment in dysarthric subjects,

Ayush Tripathi, Swapnil Bhosale, and Sunil Kumar Kopparapu, “A novel approach for intelligibility assessment in dysarthric subjects,” in Proc. ICASSP. IEEE, 2020, pp. 6779–6783

2020
[21]

Dysarthric speech recognition using variational mode decomposition and convolutional neural networks,

Rajendran Rajeswari, T Devi, and S Shalini, “Dysarthric speech recognition using variational mode decomposition and convolutional neural networks,” Wireless Personal Communications, vol. 122, no. 1, pp. 293–307, 2022

2022
[22]

Glottal source information for patho- logical voice detection,

NP Narendra and Paavo Alku, “Glottal source information for patho- logical voice detection,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 67745–67755, 2020

2020
[23]

Pre- trained models for detection and severity level classification of dysarthria from speech,

Farhad Javanmardi, Sudarsana Reddy Kadiri, and Paavo Alku, “Pre- trained models for detection and severity level classification of dysarthria from speech,” Speech Communication, vol. 158, pp. 103047, 2024

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Disorders of communication: dysarthria,

Pam Enderby, “Disorders of communication: dysarthria,” Handbook of Clinical Neurology, vol. 110, pp. 273–281, 2013

work page 2013

[2] [2]

Toward phonetic intelligibility testing in dysarthria,

Ray D Kent, Gary Weismer, Jane F Kent, and John C Rosenbek, “Toward phonetic intelligibility testing in dysarthria,” Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 482–499, 1989

work page 1989

[3] [3]

Speech-language patholo- gists’ use of intelligibility measures in adults with dysarthria,

Naomi Gurevich and Sydney L Scamihorn, “Speech-language patholo- gists’ use of intelligibility measures in adults with dysarthria,” American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology , vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 873–892, 2017

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Spectro-temporal representation of speech for intelligibility assessment of dysarthria,

HM Chandrashekar, Veena Karjigi, and N Sreedevi, “Spectro-temporal representation of speech for intelligibility assessment of dysarthria,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 390–399, 2019

work page 2019

[5] [5]

Perceptually enhanced single frequency filtering for dysarthric speech detection and intelligi- bility assessment,

Krishna Gurugubelli and Anil Kumar Vuppala, “Perceptually enhanced single frequency filtering for dysarthric speech detection and intelligi- bility assessment,” in Proc. ICASSP. IEEE, 2019, pp. 6410–6414

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Classification of dysarthric speech according to the severity of impairment: an analysis of acoustic features,

Bassam Ali Al-Qatab and Mumtaz Begum Mustafa, “Classification of dysarthric speech according to the severity of impairment: an analysis of acoustic features,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 18183–18194, 2021

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Wav2vec-based detection and severity level classification of dysarthria from speech,

Farhad Javanmardi, Saska Tirronen, Manila Kodali, Sudarsana Reddy Kadiri, and Paavo Alku, “Wav2vec-based detection and severity level classification of dysarthria from speech,” in Proc. ICASSP. IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

work page 2023

[8] [8]

Whisper features for dysarthric severity-level classi- fication,

Siddharth Rathod, Monil Charola, Akshat V ora, Yash Jogi, and He- mant A. Patil, “Whisper features for dysarthric severity-level classi- fication,” in Proc. INTERSPEECH, 2023, pp. 1523–1527

work page 2023