Cited by 70Voice and Speech DisordersEmotion and Mood RecognitionArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Speech as a Biomarker: Opportunities, Interpretability, and Challenges

Ramanarayanan, Vikram, Lammert, Adam C., Rowe, Hannah P., Quatieri, Thomas F., Green, Jordan R.·2022·Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups

Abstract

Purpose: Over the past decade, the signal processing and machine learning literature has demonstrated notable advancements in automated speech processing with the use of artificial intelligence for medical assessment and monitoring (e.g., depression, dementia, and Parkinson's disease, among others). Meanwhile, the clinical speech literature has identified several interpretable, theoretically motivated measures that are sensitive to abnormalities in the cognitive, linguistic, affective, motoric, and anatomical domains. Both fields have, thus, independently demonstrated the potential for speech to serve as an informative biomarker for detecting different psychiatric and physiological conditions. However, despite these parallel advancements, automated speech biomarkers have not been integrated into routine clinical practice to date. Conclusions: In this article, we present opportunities and challenges for adoption of speech as a biomarker in clinical practice and research. Toward clinical acceptance and adoption of speech-based digital biomarkers, we argue for the importance of several factors such as robustness, specificity, diversity, and physiological interpretability of speech analytics in clinical applications.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1044/2021_persp-21-00174

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Clinical AI can be well suited to assessing or monitoring an individual's specific speech and language abilities, after the diagnostics have been considered by a human clinician in the loop.

    “In contrast, clinical AI can indeed be well suited to assessing or monitoring an individual's specific speech and language abilities, after the diagnostics have been considered by a human clinician in the loop (e.g., Liss & Berisha, 2024;Ramanarayanan et al., 2022).”
  • New opportunities in interpretability include integrating domain knowledge from clinicians into modelling approaches.

    “New opportunities are blossoming in the realm of interpretability, not only encompassing previously discussed areas but also highlighting the potential of integrating domain knowledge from clinicians into modelling approaches [188].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 43 · Cited by 70

Authors
Ramanarayanan, V., Lammert, A. C., Rowe, H. P., Quatieri, T. F., & Green, J. R.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Worcester Polytechnic Institute (US)
  • MGH Institute of Health Professions (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Venue
Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups
Published
2022-02-11
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
276-283
ISSN
  • 2381-473X (ISSN-L)
  • 2381-4764
OpenAlex
W4205105230
Cited by
70
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5
FWCI
8.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
speech biomarkers, digital biomarkers, automated speech analysis, interpretability, clinical adoption, robustness, specificity, speech analytics, psychiatric conditions, Parkinson's disease, dementia, depression

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review