The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Automated Speech Recognition in Adult Stroke Survivors: Comparing Human and Computer Transcriptions
Abstract
Objective Speech sound errors are common in people with a variety of communication disorders and can result in impaired message transmission to listeners. Valid and reliable metrics exist to quantify this problem, but they are rarely used in clinical settings due to the time-intensive nature of speech transcription by humans. Automated speech recognition (ASR) technologies have advanced substantially in recent years, enabling them to serve as realistic proxies for human listeners. This study aimed to determine how closely transcription scores from human listeners correspond to scores from an ASR system. Patients and methods Sentence recordings from 10 stroke survivors with aphasia and apraxia of speech were transcribed orthographically by 3 listeners and a web-based ASR service. Adjusted transcription scores were calculated for all samples based on accuracy of transcribed content words. Results As expected, transcription scores were significantly higher for the humans than for ASR. However, intraclass correlations revealed excellent agreement among the humans and ASR systems, and the systematically lower scores for computer speech recognition were effectively equalized simply by adding the regression intercept. Conclusions The results suggest the clinical feasibility of supplementing or substituting human transcriptions with computer-generated scores, though extension to other speech disorders requires further research.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Current speech recognition systems are poorly equipped to process the speech variance and impaired speech intelligibility due to, e.g., oral cancer (Halpern et al. 2020), cleft lip and palate (Schuster et al. 2006) or stroke survivors (Jacks et al. 2019).”
From “Alexa, who am I?”: Voice Assistants and Hermeneutic Lemniscate as the Technologically Mediated Sense-Making (2021) · cites this paper as Jacks et al. 2019
Citations
Cites
A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016) · Journal of Chiropractic Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 · Cited by 31,709
Research works printed but not linked: 34
- 10.1075/sspcl.1.01ken · DOI
- 10.1080/02699200400026843 · DOI
- 10.1044/jshr.3402.285 · DOI
- 10.1016/0021-9924(78)90024-2 · DOI
- 10.1016/0021-9924(80)90019-2 · DOI
- 10.1044/jshr.1301.59 · DOI
- 10.1044/jshr.0704.325 · DOI
- 10.1080/02687039808249568 · DOI
- 10.1080/02687040143000537 · DOI
- 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0161) · DOI
- 10.1075/sspcl.1.02sch · DOI
- 10.1044/jshr.2403.441 · DOI
- 10.1044/1058-0360(2011/11-0102) · DOI
- 10.1080/17549507.2016.1267262 · DOI
- 10.1080/02687038.2011.628379 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1460-6984.2012.00183.x · DOI
- 10.1044/2017_AJSLP-16-0112 · DOI
- 10.1121/1.1906946 · DOI
- 10.1109/10.250584 · DOI
- 10.1080/07434619812331278196 · DOI
- 10.1080/02699200050024001 · DOI
- 10.1080/aac.17.4.265.275 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-642-21043-3_36 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2762475 · DOI
- 10.1080/07434619512331277289 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jpor.2009.07.004 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICEEI.2017.8312396 · DOI
- 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-S-14-0277 · DOI
- 10.1044/1092-4388(2005/005) · DOI
- 10.1111/1460-6984.12061 · DOI
- 10.1109/MSP.2012.2205597 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1044/1092-4388(2002/033) · DOI
- 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-S-12-0372 · DOI
- 10.1044/1092-4388(2005/090) · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kudina, O. (2021) · Human Studies · doi:10.1007/s10746-021-09572-9 · Cited by 44
“Current speech recognition systems are poorly equipped to process the speech variance and impaired speech intelligibility due to, e.g., oral cancer (Halpern et al. 2020), cleft lip and palate (Schuster et al. 2006) or stroke survivors (Jacks et al. 2019).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Jacks, A., Haley, K. L., Bishop, G., & Harmon, T. G.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Brigham Young University (US)
- Venue
- Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2019
- Volume
- 71
- Issue
- 5-6
- Pages
- 286-296
- ISSN
- 0015-5705 (ISSN-L)
- 1021-7762
- 1421-9972
- OpenAlex
- W2946286144
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 2.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R03DC011881)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Voice and Speech Disorders
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech Recognition and Synthesis
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Keywords
- speech recognition, stroke survivors, aphasia, apraxia of speech, speech sound errors, speech transcription
- MeSH terms
- Stroke Rehabilitation, Adult, Aged, Aphasia, Apraxias, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Speech Intelligibility, Survivors, Speech Recognition Software
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Automated Speech Recognition in Adult Stroke Survivors: Comparing Human and Computer Transcriptions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000499156
- The paper
- Jacks, A., Haley, K. L., Bishop, G., & Harmon, T. G. (2019). Automated Speech Recognition in Adult Stroke Survivors: Comparing Human and Computer Transcriptions. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica. https://doi.org/10.1159/000499156