Different Performances of Machine Learning Models to Classify Dysphonic and Non-Dysphonic Voices

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Danilo Rangel Arruda Leite , Ronei Marcos de Moraes , Leonardo Wanderley Lopes
{"title":"Different Performances of Machine Learning Models to Classify Dysphonic and Non-Dysphonic Voices","authors":"Danilo Rangel Arruda Leite ,&nbsp;Ronei Marcos de Moraes ,&nbsp;Leonardo Wanderley Lopes","doi":"10.1016/j.jvoice.2022.11.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To analyze the performance of 10 different machine learning (ML) classifiers for discrimination between dysphonic and non-dysphonic voices, using a variance threshold as a method for the selection and reduction of acoustic measurements used in the classifier.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>We analyzed 435 samples of individuals (337 female and 98 male), with a mean age of 41.07 ± 13.73 years, of which 384 were dysphonic and 51 were non-dysphonic. From the sustained /ε/ vowel sample, 34 acoustic measurements were extracted, including traditional perturbation and noise measurements, cepstral/spectral measurements, and measurements based on nonlinear models<span>. The variance method was used to select the best set of acoustic measurements. We tested the performance of the best-selected set with 10 ML classifiers using precision, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and F1-Score measurements. The kappa coefficient was used to verify the reproducibility between the two datasets (training and testing).</span></div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div><span>The naive Bayes (NB) and stochastic gradient descent classifier (SGDC) models performed best in terms of accuracy, AUC, sensitivity, and specificity for a reduced </span><em>dataset</em> of 15 acoustic measures compared to the full <em>dataset</em> of 34 acoustic measures. SGDC and NB obtained the best performance results, with an accuracy of 0.91 and 0.76, respectively. These two classifiers presented moderate agreement, with a Kappa of 0.57 (SGDC) and 0.45 (NB).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Among the tested models, the NB and SGDC models performed better in discriminating between dysphonic and non-dysphonic voices from a set of 15 acoustic measures.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49954,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Voice","volume":"39 3","pages":"Pages 577-590"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Voice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892199722003538","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To analyze the performance of 10 different machine learning (ML) classifiers for discrimination between dysphonic and non-dysphonic voices, using a variance threshold as a method for the selection and reduction of acoustic measurements used in the classifier.

Method

We analyzed 435 samples of individuals (337 female and 98 male), with a mean age of 41.07 ± 13.73 years, of which 384 were dysphonic and 51 were non-dysphonic. From the sustained /ε/ vowel sample, 34 acoustic measurements were extracted, including traditional perturbation and noise measurements, cepstral/spectral measurements, and measurements based on nonlinear models. The variance method was used to select the best set of acoustic measurements. We tested the performance of the best-selected set with 10 ML classifiers using precision, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and F1-Score measurements. The kappa coefficient was used to verify the reproducibility between the two datasets (training and testing).

Results

The naive Bayes (NB) and stochastic gradient descent classifier (SGDC) models performed best in terms of accuracy, AUC, sensitivity, and specificity for a reduced dataset of 15 acoustic measures compared to the full dataset of 34 acoustic measures. SGDC and NB obtained the best performance results, with an accuracy of 0.91 and 0.76, respectively. These two classifiers presented moderate agreement, with a Kappa of 0.57 (SGDC) and 0.45 (NB).

Conclusion

Among the tested models, the NB and SGDC models performed better in discriminating between dysphonic and non-dysphonic voices from a set of 15 acoustic measures.
机器学习模型在对浊音和非浊音进行分类时的不同表现
目的分析 10 种不同的机器学习(ML)分类器在区分发音障碍和非发音障碍声音方面的性能:我们分析了 435 个样本(女性 337 个,男性 98 个),平均年龄为 41.07 ± 13.73 岁,其中 384 个为发音障碍样本,51 个为非发音障碍样本。从持续/ε/元音样本中提取了 34 个声学测量值,包括传统的扰动和噪声测量值、epstral/频谱测量值以及基于非线性模型的测量值。我们使用方差法来选择最佳声学测量集。我们使用精度、灵敏度、特异性、准确度和 F1 分数测量法,用 10 个 ML 分类器测试了最佳选择集的性能。卡帕系数用于验证两个数据集(训练集和测试集)之间的可重复性:天真贝叶斯(NB)和随机梯度下降分类器(SGDC)模型的准确度、AUC、灵敏度和特异性与包含 34 种声学测量指标的完整数据集相比,在减少 15 种声学测量指标的数据集中表现最佳。SGDC 和 NB 的准确率分别为 0.91 和 0.76,表现最佳。这两个分类器的一致性适中,Kappa 分别为 0.57(SGDC)和 0.45(NB):结论:在所测试的模型中,NB 和 SGDC 模型在通过一组 15 项声学测量来区分发音困难和非发音困难的声音方面表现较好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Voice
Journal of Voice 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
13.60%
发文量
395
审稿时长
59 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Voice is widely regarded as the world''s premiere journal for voice medicine and research. This peer-reviewed publication is listed in Index Medicus and is indexed by the Institute for Scientific Information. The journal contains articles written by experts throughout the world on all topics in voice sciences, voice medicine and surgery, and speech-language pathologists'' management of voice-related problems. The journal includes clinical articles, clinical research, and laboratory research. Members of the Foundation receive the journal as a benefit of membership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信