| Literature DB >> 31220113 |
Wei Pan1,2, Jonathan Flint3, Liat Shenhav4, Tianli Liu5, Mingming Liu1,2, Bin Hu6, Tingshao Zhu1.
Abstract
A large proportion of Depression Disorder patients do not receive an effective diagnosis, which makes it necessary to find a more objective assessment to facilitate a more rapid and accurate diagnosis of depression. Speech data is easy to acquire clinically, its association with depression has been studied, although the actual predictive effect of voice features has not been examined. Thus, we do not have a general understanding of the extent to which voice features contribute to the identification of depression. In this study, we investigated the significance of the association between voice features and depression using binary logistic regression, and the actual classification effect of voice features on depression was re-examined through classification modeling. Nearly 1000 Chinese females participated in this study. Several different datasets was included as test set. We found that 4 voice features (PC1, PC6, PC17, PC24, P<0.05, corrected) made significant contribution to depression, and that the contribution effect of the voice features alone reached 35.65% (Nagelkerke's R2). In classification modeling, voice data based model has consistently higher predicting accuracy(F-measure) than the baseline model of demographic data when tested on different datasets, even across different emotion context. F-measure of voice features alone reached 81%, consistent with existing data. These results demonstrate that voice features are effective in predicting depression and indicate that more sophisticated models based on voice features can be built to help in clinical diagnosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31220113 PMCID: PMC6586278 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218172
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Binary logistic regression model of demographic data.
| SE | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.05 | 0.01 | -4.83 | 2.1E-04 | 0.95 | |
| 0.15 | 0.04 | 4.07 | 7.4E-03 | 1.17 | |
| 1.07 | 0.24 | 4.43 | 1.5E-03 | 2.90 |
P<0.01**,
P<0.001***;
Bonferroni correction
Binary logistic regression model of voice data.
| SE | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.5486592 | 0.1007107 | -5.448 | 7.85E-06 | 0.58 | |
| 0.4536389 | 0.1117325 | 4.06 | 7.56E-03 | 1.57 | |
| 0.4251865 | 0.093759 | 4.535 | 8.87E-04 | 1.53 | |
| 0.3687606 | 0.0984286 | 3.746 | 2.76E-02 | 1.45 |
P<0.05*,
P<0.01**,
P<0.001***;
Bonferroni correction
Binary logistic regression model of demographic data and voice data.
| SE | corrected | OR | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.19 | 0.05 | 3.82 | 0.021 | 1.21 | |
| -0.53 | 0.12 | -4.54 | 8.65E-04 | 0.59 | |
| 0.43 | 0.10 | 4.35 | 2.1E-03 | 1.54 |
P<0.05*,
P<0.01**,
P<0.001***;
Bonferroni correction
Compare model fitness between demo+voi and demo.
| resid.df | resid.dev | df | ϰ2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| demo+voi | 764 | 886.59 | -241.11 | 9.848E-08*** | |
| demo | 901 | 1127.7 | -137 |
a demo:demographic data; voi: voice data
P<0.001***
Compare model fitness between demo+voi and demo.
| resid.df | resid.dev | df | ϰ2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| voi | 780 | 926.73 | -200.97 | 6.77E-06 | |
| demo | 901 | 1127.7 | -121 |
P<0.001***
Classification results for the test set from D2.A.
| 0.66 | 0.76 | 0.72 | 0.73 | |
| 0.72 | 0.73 | 0.91 | ||
| 0.73 | 0.75 | 0.87 | 0.81 |
Classification results for the test set from D2.B.
| 0.67 | 0.78 | 0.73 | 0.75 | |
| 0.71 | 0.77 | 0.84 | ||
| 0.73 | 0.8 | 0.81 | 0.81 |
Classification results for the test set from 973 data under positive emotion context.
| 0.62 | 0.76 | 0.64 | 0.69 | |
| 0.63 | 0.69 | 0.82 | ||
| 0.66 | 0.7 | 0.85 | 0.77 |
Classification results for the test set from 973 data under neutral emotion context.
| 0.67 | 0.78 | 0.73 | 0.75 | |
| 0.71 | 0.77 | 0.84 | ||
| 0.73 | 0.8 | 0.81 | 0.81 |
Classification results for the test set from 973 data under negative emotion context.
| 0.62 | 0.76 | 0.64 | 0.69 | |
| 0.64 | 0.68 | 0.87 | ||
| 0.66 | 0.7 | 0.87 | 0.78 |