评估COVID-19期间人工耳蜗候选人语音转文本应用的准确性

IF 1.4 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Prithwijit Roychowdhury, Melissa Castillo-Bustamante, Dhrumi Gandhi, Renata M Knoll, Matthew J Wu, Elliott D Kozin, Aaron K Remenschneider
{"title":"评估COVID-19期间人工耳蜗候选人语音转文本应用的准确性","authors":"Prithwijit Roychowdhury,&nbsp;Melissa Castillo-Bustamante,&nbsp;Dhrumi Gandhi,&nbsp;Renata M Knoll,&nbsp;Matthew J Wu,&nbsp;Elliott D Kozin,&nbsp;Aaron K Remenschneider","doi":"10.1080/14670100.2022.2120450","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Universal mask wearing due to COVID-19 has introduced barriers to clear communication. In hearing impaired individuals this can impact informed surgical consent. For cochlear implant candidates, who do not rely on sign language, real-time transcription with a stenographer (CART) is the gold-standard in assistive technologies. If CART is not available, speech to text (STT) applications have been advertised as solutions, but their transcription accuracy with or without an N95 mask is not well-established. Herein, we sought to investigate the transcription accuracy of three STT solutions for iPhone and compare their performance to the CART service at our institution.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three native English speakers and three non-native English speakers read two passages (a cochlear implant consent and the non-medical 'Rainbow passage') with and without an N95 mask. Error rates from the comparison of the transcript (from either the STT app or CART) with the original passage were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The CART service had the lowest error rate of all testing conditions (4.79-7.14%). Ava 24/7 (15.0 ± 9.49%) and the iPhone dictation (15.6 ± 6.65%) had significantly lower average error rates than the Live Transcribe (37.7 ± 20.3%) (<i>P</i> < 0.0001) application. Neither the presence of an N95 nor the type of passage had a statistically significant impact on the error rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CART should be used to augment communication with patients who are hard of hearing. If CART is not available, a STT application such as Ava 24/7 or the native iPhone dictation application may be considered, even in the context of medical terminology.</p>","PeriodicalId":53553,"journal":{"name":"COCHLEAR IMPLANTS INTERNATIONAL","volume":"24 1","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the accuracy of speech to text applications for cochlear implant candidates during COVID-19.\",\"authors\":\"Prithwijit Roychowdhury,&nbsp;Melissa Castillo-Bustamante,&nbsp;Dhrumi Gandhi,&nbsp;Renata M Knoll,&nbsp;Matthew J Wu,&nbsp;Elliott D Kozin,&nbsp;Aaron K Remenschneider\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14670100.2022.2120450\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Universal mask wearing due to COVID-19 has introduced barriers to clear communication. In hearing impaired individuals this can impact informed surgical consent. For cochlear implant candidates, who do not rely on sign language, real-time transcription with a stenographer (CART) is the gold-standard in assistive technologies. If CART is not available, speech to text (STT) applications have been advertised as solutions, but their transcription accuracy with or without an N95 mask is not well-established. Herein, we sought to investigate the transcription accuracy of three STT solutions for iPhone and compare their performance to the CART service at our institution.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three native English speakers and three non-native English speakers read two passages (a cochlear implant consent and the non-medical 'Rainbow passage') with and without an N95 mask. Error rates from the comparison of the transcript (from either the STT app or CART) with the original passage were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The CART service had the lowest error rate of all testing conditions (4.79-7.14%). Ava 24/7 (15.0 ± 9.49%) and the iPhone dictation (15.6 ± 6.65%) had significantly lower average error rates than the Live Transcribe (37.7 ± 20.3%) (<i>P</i> < 0.0001) application. Neither the presence of an N95 nor the type of passage had a statistically significant impact on the error rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CART should be used to augment communication with patients who are hard of hearing. If CART is not available, a STT application such as Ava 24/7 or the native iPhone dictation application may be considered, even in the context of medical terminology.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":53553,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"COCHLEAR IMPLANTS INTERNATIONAL\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"1-5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"COCHLEAR IMPLANTS INTERNATIONAL\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2022.2120450\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"COCHLEAR IMPLANTS INTERNATIONAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2022.2120450","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:由于COVID-19,普遍佩戴口罩为清晰沟通带来了障碍。在听力受损的个体中,这可能会影响知情的手术同意。对于不依赖手语的人工耳蜗候选人来说,借助速记员进行实时转录(CART)是辅助技术的黄金标准。如果CART不可用,语音到文本(STT)应用程序已被宣传为解决方案,但它们的转录准确性是否有N95掩码尚未建立。在此,我们试图调查三种iPhone STT解决方案的转录准确性,并将其性能与我们机构的CART服务进行比较。方法:三名英语母语者和三名非英语母语者分别戴和不戴N95口罩阅读两篇文章(一篇耳蜗植入同意书和一篇非医学“彩虹”文章)。计算成绩单(来自STT应用程序或CART)与原始段落的比较错误率。结果:CART服务在所有检测条件中错误率最低(4.79 ~ 7.14%)。Ava 24/7(15.0±9.49%)和iPhone听写(15.6±6.65%)的平均错误率明显低于Live transcript(37.7±20.3%)(P结论:CART应用于加强与听力困难患者的沟通。如果CART不可用,则可以考虑使用STT应用程序,例如Ava 24/7或本机iPhone听写应用程序,即使在医学术语上下文中也是如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating the accuracy of speech to text applications for cochlear implant candidates during COVID-19.

Objectives: Universal mask wearing due to COVID-19 has introduced barriers to clear communication. In hearing impaired individuals this can impact informed surgical consent. For cochlear implant candidates, who do not rely on sign language, real-time transcription with a stenographer (CART) is the gold-standard in assistive technologies. If CART is not available, speech to text (STT) applications have been advertised as solutions, but their transcription accuracy with or without an N95 mask is not well-established. Herein, we sought to investigate the transcription accuracy of three STT solutions for iPhone and compare their performance to the CART service at our institution.

Methods: Three native English speakers and three non-native English speakers read two passages (a cochlear implant consent and the non-medical 'Rainbow passage') with and without an N95 mask. Error rates from the comparison of the transcript (from either the STT app or CART) with the original passage were calculated.

Results: The CART service had the lowest error rate of all testing conditions (4.79-7.14%). Ava 24/7 (15.0 ± 9.49%) and the iPhone dictation (15.6 ± 6.65%) had significantly lower average error rates than the Live Transcribe (37.7 ± 20.3%) (P < 0.0001) application. Neither the presence of an N95 nor the type of passage had a statistically significant impact on the error rate.

Conclusion: CART should be used to augment communication with patients who are hard of hearing. If CART is not available, a STT application such as Ava 24/7 or the native iPhone dictation application may be considered, even in the context of medical terminology.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
COCHLEAR IMPLANTS INTERNATIONAL
COCHLEAR IMPLANTS INTERNATIONAL Medicine-Otorhinolaryngology
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Cochlear Implants International was founded as an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal in response to the growing number of publications in the field of cochlear implants. It was designed to meet a need to include scientific contributions from all the disciplines that are represented in cochlear implant teams: audiology, medicine and surgery, speech therapy and speech pathology, psychology, hearing therapy, radiology, pathology, engineering and acoustics, teaching, and communication. The aim was to found a truly interdisciplinary journal, representing the full breadth of the field of cochlear implantation.
×
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