| Literature DB >> 26558287 |
Eduardo Gonzalez-Moreira1, Diana Torres-Boza1, Héctor Arturo Kairuz1, Carlos Ferrer1, Marlene Garcia-Zamora2, Fernando Espinoza-Cuadros3, Luis Alfonso Hernandez-Gómez3.
Abstract
This paper describes an exploratory technique to identify mild dementia by assessing the degree of speech deficits. A total of twenty participants were used for this experiment, ten patients with a diagnosis of mild dementia and ten participants like healthy control. The audio session for each subject was recorded following a methodology developed for the present study. Prosodic features in patients with mild dementia and healthy elderly controls were measured using automatic prosodic analysis on a reading task. A novel method was carried out to gather twelve prosodic features over speech samples. The best classification rate achieved was of 85% accuracy using four prosodic features. The results attained show that the proposed computational speech analysis offers a viable alternative for automatic identification of dementia features in elderly adults.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26558287 PMCID: PMC4629008 DOI: 10.1155/2015/916356
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Participant demographic data.
| Item | Group | |
|---|---|---|
| MD | Non-MD | |
| Number of patients | 10 | 10 |
| Male | 6 | 9 |
| Female | 4 | 1 |
| Average age (years) | 80.3 | 78.9 |
| Average years of education (years) | 4.9 | 7.8 |
Figure 1DCGrab v3.0 software.
Figure 2Algorithm block diagram for features set (adapted from [8]).
Prosodic features for mild dementia patients (MD) and healthy controls (non-MD).
| Features | MD | Non-MD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Range | Mean (SD) | Range | |
| SPT | 156.4 (56.4) | 75.0–234.2 | 127.9 (64.6) | 59.2–249.7 |
| NPU | 81.3 (38.2) | 32–132.0 | 62.1 (33.7) | 27.0–124.0 |
| PPU | 54.7 (16.6) | 30.1–78.2 | 52.2 (10.8) | 30.7–64.8 |
| PHT | 63.2 (13.4) | 50.3–90.1 | 55.3 (16.9) | 33.5–107.2 |
| PPH | 45.2 (16.6) | 21.7–69.8 | 47.7 (10.8) | 35.1–69.2 |
| SPR | 2.1 (0.8) | 1.2–3.8 | 2.3 (0.5) | 1.6–3.6 |
| ARR | 4.8 (0.7) | 3.6–5.9 | 4.8 (0.6) | 4.3–6.3 |
| NSY | 306.6 (67.6) | 225–449 | 266.8 (75.1) | 133–401 |
| MSD | 0.1 (0.0) | 0.0–0.1 | 0.1 (0.0) | 0.0–0.1 |
| SDF | 42.0 (13.5) | 24.5–68.6 | 29.3 (8.7) | 17.6–46.6 |
| MVF | 279.3 (80.2) | 143–377 | 232.9 (109.2) | 99–375 |
| MFF | 174.4 (40.6) | 108.0–219.9 | 138.2 (27.7) | 105.9–192.3 |
Statistic analysis results.
| Features | Kolmogorov-Smirnov | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| Ranking | |
| SPT | 0 | 0,675 | 7 |
| NPU | 0 | 0,675 | 8 |
| PPU | 0 | 0,675 | 9 |
| PHT | 0 | 0,312 | 3 |
| PPH | 0 | 0,675 | 10 |
| SPR | 0 | 0,312 | 4 |
| ARR | 0 | 0,675 | 11 |
| NSY | 0 | 0,312 | 5 |
| MSD | 0 | 0,974 | 12 |
| SDF | 1 | 0,030 | 1 |
| MVF | 0 | 0,312 | 6 |
| MFF | 1 | 0,032 | 2 |
Level of significance based on p values for prosodic features.
| Significant (SIG) | Possibly significant (PSIG) | Nonsignificant (NSIG) |
|---|---|---|
| SDF | PTH | SPT |
| MFF | SPR | NPU |
| NSY | PPU | |
| MVF | PPH | |
| ARR | ||
| MSD |
SVM classification results for significant group combination.
| Group | Accu | Sens | Spec |
|---|---|---|---|
| SIG |
|
|
|
| PSIG | 35.0 | 36.3 | 33.3 |
| NSIG | 45.0 | 46.1 | 42.8 |
| SIG-PSIG | 60.0 | 58.3 | 62.5 |
| SIG-NSIG | 65.0 | 66.7 | 63.6 |
| PSIG-NSIG | 30.0 | 33.3 | 25.0 |
| SIG-PSIG-NSIG | 65.0 | 61.5 | 71.4 |
Summary of dataset size and classification accuracies reported in previous works.
| Previous works | Participants (patients) | Classification accuracies |
|---|---|---|
|
Lehr et al. [ | 72 (35) | 75.4%–81.5% |
| Thomas et al. [ | 85 (50) | 58.8%–75.3% |
| Bucks et al. [ | 24 (8) | 87.5% |
SVM classification results for best features combination.
| Features | Accu | Sens | Spec |
|---|---|---|---|
| SDF | 75.0 | 69.2 | 85.7 |
| PHT-MFF | 75.0 | 72.7 | 77.7 |
| NPU-PHT-MFF | 80.0 | 80.0 | 80.0 |
| ARR-MSD-SDF-MFF |
|
|
|
| NPU-NSY-SDF-MVF-MFF | 80.0 | 80.0 | 80.0 |
| NPU-PPH-NSY-SDF-MVF-MFF | 80.0 | 80.0 | 80.0 |
| NPU-PPU-PPH-NSY-SDF-MVF-MFF | 80.0 | 80.0 | 80.0 |
| SPT-NPU-PPU-PPH-NSY-SDF-MVF-MFF | 80.0 | 80.0 | 80.0 |
| SPT-NPU-PPU-PHT-PPH-SPR-ARR-NSY-MFF | 75.0 | 72.7 | 77.7 |
| NPU-PPU-PHT-PPH-ARR-NSY-MSD-SDF-MVF-MFF | 70.0 | 66.6 | 75.0 |
| SPT-NPU-PPU-PHT-PPH-SPR-ARR-NSY-MSD-SDF-MFF | 70.0 | 66.6 | 75.0 |
| SPT-NPU-PPU-PHT-PPH-SPR-ARR-NSY-MSD-SDF-MVF-MFF | 65.0 | 61.5 | 71.4 |