Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Leveraging Prompt Learning and Pause Encoding for Alzheimer's Disease Detection

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Prompt-based fine-tuning with pause encoding reaches 95.8% accuracy for Alzheimer's detection from transcripts alone.

desk verdict Useful incremental comparison of prompt learning and pause encoding for AD detection, but the 95.8% SOTA claim is the maximum over fifteen seeds and sits on a two-subject difference; the mean accuracy is below the prior SOTA. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06259 v1 pith:56TIVBN6 submitted 2024-12-09 eess.AS cs.SD

Yin-Long Liu , Rui Feng , Jia-Hong Yuan , Zhen-Hua Ling This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.AScs.SD
keywords Alzheimer'sdiseasedetectionprompt-basedfine-tuningpauseencodingpre-trainedlanguagemodelsADReSSbenchmarkforcedalignmentensemblevotingtranscript-onlyclassification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that Alzheimer's disease can be detected more reliably from speech transcripts when a pre-trained language model is fine-tuned with a prompt template rather than a standard classification head, and when word-boundary pauses recovered from forced alignment are written into the text as punctuation. On the ADReSS benchmark, this combination reaches a maximum accuracy of 95.8% using manual transcripts, which the authors report as the best transcript-only result on that test set. The practical stakes are that a cheap, non-invasive screening signal—spontaneous speech—can be squeezed harder without any acoustic features.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the prompt template "The diagnosis result is [MASK]", which turns the classification decision into a word-choice prediction and lets the PLM use its masked-language-modeling head instead of a new classification layer. A second component is pause encoding: forced alignment supplies word-boundary 'SIL' intervals, which are grouped into three duration bins and transcribed as punctuation marks so that disfluency patterns enter the text itself. The third component is the ensemble: majority voting over the last three epochs, late fusion of two template positions, and voting across BERT and RoBERTa with 15 random seeds, which stabilizes the result and is the source of the reported maximum.

What would settle it

Running the same pipeline with a single fixed seed and reporting the test accuracy, or computing the median over the 15 seeds, would settle it: if the fixed-seed accuracy lands near the 87.9% mean rather than near 95.8%, the state-of-the-art claim rests on selection over seeds rather than on a systematic gain. A second check is whether the pause-encoding benefit survives when the forced-alignment timestamps are replaced by random punctuation inserted at the same rate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that recasting binary AD classification as a masked-language-modeling task closes the gap between fine-tuning and pre-training objectives, and that this change, together with pause encoding and cross-model voting, is what pushes transcript-only accuracy on the ADReSS test set to 95.8% (mean 87.9%, std 3.3%). The authors insert the template "The diagnosis result is [MASK]" before or after each transcript, fine-tune BERT or RoBERTa to predict the label word "alzheimer" or "healthy", and then fuse predictions across the two models, two template positions, and multiple random seeds. Pauses from forced alignment are binned into short, medium, and long and encoded as ',', '.', and '...', giving the model explicit disfluency cues. The paper also reports that adding interviewer speech hurts accuracy, and that Whisper ASR transcripts, despite being the most accurate of the tested recognizers, still underperform manual transcripts.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the best result over 15 random seeds, two prompt positions, two models, and epoch voting is a fair representative of system performance; on 48 test subjects, the 95.8% maximum differs from the prior 91.7% by only about two people, while the mean over seeds is 87.9%.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Transcript-only AD detection need not rely on a classification head; a prompt-formulated MLM objective can outperform the standard fine-tuning setup.
  • Pause duration markers add complementary signal to the words themselves, improving accuracy in both fine-tuning paradigms.
  • Including interviewer speech in the model input lowers accuracy, so subject-only transcripts are the safer input.
  • Even the best ASR transcripts degrade performance relative to manual transcripts, implying recognition errors currently cost more than the convenience of automation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: the headline 95.8% is the maximum over 15 seeds, so the expected accuracy of a single run is closer to the reported mean of 87.9%, and the two-subject gap over the prior baseline could shrink if seed selection is removed.
  • Inference: the pause-encoding gain suggests that explicit disfluency markers, not just word content, drive the improvement; a direct test would be to add random punctuation at the same rate and check that accuracy does not rise.
  • Inference: transfer to other AD datasets with more speakers and ASR conditions is the natural next experiment, since the 48-subject test set makes the best-of-seeds figure brittle.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes prompt-based fine-tuning (PBFT) of BERT and RoBERTa for Alzheimer's disease detection on the ADReSS benchmark, together with pause encoding derived from forced alignment, a comparison of manual versus Whisper ASR transcripts, and majority voting/ensemble over models, prompt positions, and random seeds. The central claim is that the method reaches a maximum test accuracy of 95.8% on manual transcripts with pause encoding, reported as state-of-the-art for transcript-only AD detection on the ADReSS test set, with mean accuracy 87.9% and standard deviation 3.3%. The paper also reports WER comparisons across several ASR models, an analysis of prompt template position, the effect of removing interviewer speech, and the contribution of pause encoding.

Significance. If the 95.8% result were robustly supported, the paper would make a useful contribution: it addresses the objective mismatch between standard sequence classification fine-tuning and masked language modeling, demonstrates a systematic comparison of prompt positions, and provides a careful WER benchmark for ASR options on pathological speech. The WER analysis and the inclusion of pause encoding are informative and likely useful to the community. However, the headline SOTA claim is not yet supported by the reported evaluation: the number is the maximum over many seeds and system variants, the mean accuracy is below the previously reported transcript-only result of 91.7%, and no statistical test is provided on a 48-subject test set. The contribution is therefore promising but the evaluation protocol needs revision before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2.2, Table 2, Sys. 12 and Abstract] The headline result of 95.8% is the maximum test accuracy selected over 15 random seeds, two prompt positions, BERT/RoBERTa fusion, base- and large-sized models, and epoch voting choices, while the reported mean is 87.9% with std 3.3% on a 48-subject test set. Under this distribution, the expected maximum over independent runs is much higher than the mean, so the gap between 95.8% and the prior 91.7% (a difference of two subjects) is not strong evidence of a real improvement. The paper should report the full selection protocol, correct for multiple comparisons, and provide a paired significance test such as McNemar's test against [15]; otherwise the SOTA claim should be withdrawn or explicitly framed as a best-of-many configuration rather than as the expected performance of the proposed method.
  2. [§3.3 and §4.2.2, Table 2] The claim of 'state-of-the-art performance for AD detection using only transcripts' is contestable because the best input includes pause encoding derived from forced alignment of the audio recordings, which is audio-derived information, not transcript-only information. The manuscript should either reclassify this setting as using transcripts plus pause timing features, or demonstrate that the 95.8% result is achieved without pause encoding. Notably, the corresponding row without pause encoding reports a maximum of 91.7%, which matches the prior SOTA and highlights that the headline result is specifically tied to the audio-derived pause information.
  3. [§4.1, Experimental Setup] The evaluation protocol reports mean, std, and maximum accuracy over 15 seeds, but the paper does not state whether any configuration selection or hyperparameter tuning was performed using the test set. Since Table 2 reports eleven system rows with multiple inputs and model sizes, and the headline number is the best cell among them, the risk of overfitting to the test set is substantial. The authors should describe exactly how the configurations were selected, report confidence intervals for the mean accuracy, and justify why the maximum rather than the mean is the appropriate performance estimate for the SOTA comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Global] There are several typographical errors: 'mjority' in Section 1.3, 'probablities' in Section 3.2, 'hign WER' in Section 5, and 'classifcation' in the caption of Figure 1. These should be corrected.
  2. [Table 2] Table 2 is very dense and difficult to parse, especially with four input conditions separated by slashes and large-model results in parentheses. A separate table or a clearer layout with explicit row labels per input type would improve readability.
  3. [§2.1] The description of manual transcript processing would benefit from an example showing a CHAT-format raw segment and the corresponding processed transcript, particularly to illustrate how '[x n]' repetition and pause markers are converted.
  4. [§4.2.1] The WER comparison is informative, but the paper does not report confidence intervals or significance tests for the WER differences between ASR models; given the small number of test utterances, these would strengthen the claim that Whisper is the best ASR choice.
  5. [Reference [3]] Reference [3] is malformed ('S. Luz and F. Haide, Fuente s. dl, fromm d, macwhinney b'). It should be corrected to a proper citation of the ADReSS challenge paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an empirical benchmark evaluation whose headline maximum is a statistical selection issue, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's claims are empirical results on the external ADReSS benchmark, not derivations from definitions that presuppose the outcome. The prompt template, label words, pause bin thresholds, and ASR model choice are fixed design choices taken from prior published work or selected before the detection experiments; none of them encodes the test labels or the target accuracy. The final 95.8% figure is the maximum over 15 random seeds, two prompt positions, two PLMs, and voting/fusion choices, while the reported mean is 87.9% with std 3.3% on a 48-subject test set, and the prior transcript-only SOTA is 91.7%. This is a legitimate statistical-selection concern about the strength of the SOTA claim, but it is not circularity: reporting a maximum is not equivalent by construction to fitting the test labels. The cited prior works by the same authors ([6], [7], and the pause-encoding scheme in [30]) are used for feature taxonomies and fixed pre-existing encoding thresholds, not as self-referential justification of the reported accuracy. No quoted equation or fitted parameter reduces to its own output, so the derivation chain is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or formal entities; its design choices are hyperparameters and textual encodings, listed above.

free parameters (7)
  • learning rate = 1e-05
    Hyperparameter for PLM fine-tuning, described as 'slightly tuned' in Section 4.1.
  • number of training epochs = 20
    Chosen for both fine-tuning methods in Section 4.1.
  • batch size = 4 for TFT, 1 for PBFT
    Set separately for the two fine-tuning paradigms in Section 4.1.
  • weight decay = 0.01
    AdamW hyperparameter from Section 4.1.
  • pause duration thresholds = 0.5 s and 2 s
    Bin boundaries for short, medium, and long pauses, inherited from [30].
  • number of random seeds = 15
    Number of repeated runs used to compute mean, std, and maximum accuracy.
  • prompt template = "The diagnosis result is [MASK]"
    Manually designed prompt with label words 'alzheimer' and 'healthy'.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The ADReSS manual transcripts and binary AD labels are accurate ground truth.
    The entire evaluation treats these labels as correct; any labeling noise would affect all reported accuracies.
  • domain assumption Forced alignment reliably identifies word boundaries and SIL pauses in pathological speech.
    Pause encoding depends on forced alignment outputs [29]; errors in alignment on AD speech would corrupt the pause binning.
  • domain assumption Pretrained language models can transfer general semantic knowledge to clinical transcript classification.
    The method relies on BERT/RoBERTa pretrained representations being useful for AD detection after fine-tuning.
  • domain assumption Inserting punctuation as pause encoding into text is processed by the model as pause information.
    The paper assumes the PLM interprets commas, periods, and ellipses as pause signals rather than as normal punctuation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Leveraging Prompt Learning and Pause Encoding for Alzheimer's Disease Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/56TIVBN6

@misc{pith2026241206259,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Leveraging Prompt Learning and Pause Encoding for Alzheimer's Disease Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/56TIVBN6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06259}
}
read the original abstract

Compared to other clinical screening techniques, speech-and-language-based automated Alzheimer's disease (AD) detection methods are characterized by their non-invasiveness, cost-effectiveness, and convenience. Previous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of fine-tuning pre-trained language models (PLMs) for AD detection. However, the objective of this traditional fine-tuning method, which involves inputting only transcripts, is inconsistent with the masked language modeling (MLM) task used during the pre-training phase of PLMs. In this paper, we investigate prompt-based fine-tuning of PLMs, converting the classification task into a MLM task by inserting prompt templates into the transcript inputs. We also explore the impact of incorporating pause information from forced alignment into manual transcripts. Additionally, we compare the performance of various automatic speech recognition (ASR) models and select the Whisper model to generate ASR-based transcripts for comparison with manual transcripts. Furthermore, majority voting and ensemble techniques are applied across different PLMs (BERT and RoBERTa) using different random seeds. Ultimately, we obtain maximum detection accuracy of 95.8% (with mean 87.9%, std 3.3%) using manual transcripts, achieving state-of-the-art performance for AD detection using only transcripts on the ADReSS test set.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06259 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall structure for PBFT. 4. Experiments We first describe the experimental setup in Section 4.1, followed by the presentation and analysis of the experimental results in Section 4.2. The results include the evaluation of the perfor￾mance of four versions of two ASR models, as well as the AD detection results under the different conditions and methods. Overall, we conducted a series of comparative experiments, in￾… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    Tackling the adress challenge: A mul- timodal approach to the automated recognition of alzheimer’s de- mentia

    M. Martinc and S. Pollak, “Tackling the adress challenge: A mul- timodal approach to the automated recognition of alzheimer’s de- mentia.” in Interspeech, 2020, pp. 2157–2161

    2020

  2. [30]

    Dis- fluencies and fine-tuning pre-trained language models for detec- tion of alzheimer’s disease

    J. Yuan, Y . Bian, X. Cai, J. Huang, Z. Ye, and K. Church, “Dis- fluencies and fine-tuning pre-trained language models for detec- tion of alzheimer’s disease.” in Interspeech, vol. 2020, 2020, pp. 2162–6

    2020

  3. [15]

    Tackling the adresso challenge 2021: The muet-rmit system for alzheimer’s dementia recognition from spontaneous speech

    Z. S. Syed, M. S. S. Syed, M. Lech, and E. Pirogova, “Tackling the adresso challenge 2021: The muet-rmit system for alzheimer’s dementia recognition from spontaneous speech.” in Interspeech, 2021, pp. 3815–3819

    2021

  4. [1]

    Leveraging Prompt Learning and Pause Encoding for Alzheimer's Disease Detection

    Introduction Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the most common cause of demen- tia, is a neurodegenerative disease that worsens over time and causes irreversible damage to the brain, manifested by a per- sistent deterioration of an individual’s cognitive and functional abilities, including language, memory, attention, and executive function [1]. Studies have show...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [2]

    &=laughs

    Data In this paper, the ADReSS challenge dataset from INTER- SPEECH 2020 [3] is used for training and evaluating the AD detection system. It is selected from the Pitt Corpus in the De- mentiaBank database [26]. The data consists of speech record- ings and corresponding manual transcripts of spoken picture de- scriptions elicited from subjects and guidance...

    work page 2020

  6. [3]

    BertForSequenceClassifica- tion

    Methods In this paper, we used BERT and RoBERTa as the PLMs to be fine-tuned. Experiments were conducted on base-sized 56 or large-sized78 versions. 3.1. Traditional Fine-Tuning (TFT) TFT method refers to using the “BertForSequenceClassifica- tion” or “RobertaForSequenceClassification” classes from the Transformers library9, as illustrated in Figure 1. Th...

    work page

  7. [4]

    Prompt Positions

    Experiments We first describe the experimental setup in Section 4.1, followed by the presentation and analysis of the experimental results in Section 4.2. The results include the evaluation of the perfor- mance of four versions of two ASR models, as well as the AD detection results under the different conditions and methods. Overall, we conducted a series...

    work page

  8. [5]

    /”) and transcripts containing only the subjects and added pause encoding (right side of the first “/

    As noted in previous analysis, including interviewer tran- scripts will reduce AD detection performance, and the perfor- mance of ASR-based transcripts with errors is lower than that of manual transcripts. Therefore, we only used two types of inputs in this experiment: transcripts containing only the sub- jects (left side of the first “/”) and transcripts...

    work page

Show all 41 references
  1. [6]

    Majority voting and ensemble techniques were further ap- plied across BERT and RoBERTa using different random seeds

    Conclusions In this paper, we proposed a method for AD detection by com- bining prompt-based fine-tuning of PLMs with pause encod- ing. Majority voting and ensemble techniques were further ap- plied across BERT and RoBERTa using different random seeds. Experimental results dem...

  2. [7]

    Advances in the early detection of alzheimer’s disease,

    P. J. Nestor, P. Scheltens, and J. R. Hodges, “Advances in the early detection of alzheimer’s disease,” Nature medicine, vol. 10, no. Suppl 7, pp. S34–S41, 2004

    2004

  3. [8]

    Brief cognitive screening instruments for early detection of alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review,

    E. E. De Roeck, P. P. De Deyn, E. Dierckx, and S. Engel- borghs, “Brief cognitive screening instruments for early detection of alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review,”Alzheimer’s research & therapy, vol. 11, pp. 1–14, 2019

    2019

  4. [9]

    Fuente s. dl, fromm d, macwhinney b,

    S. Luz and F. Haide, “Fuente s. dl, fromm d, macwhinney b,” Alzheimer’s Dementia Recognition through Spontaneous Speech: The ADReSS Challenge. Proc Interspeech, pp. 2172–6, 2020

    2020

  5. [10]

    Detecting cognitive decline using speech only: The adresso challenge,

    S. Luz, F. Haider, S. de la Fuente, D. Fromm, and B. MacWhin- ney, “Detecting cognitive decline using speech only: The adresso challenge,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.09356, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  6. [11]

    Using the outputs of different automatic speech recognition paradigms for acoustic-and bert-based alzheimer’s dementia detection through spontaneous speech

    Y . Pan, B. Mirheidari, J. M. Harris, J. C. Thompson, M. Jones, J. S. Snowden, D. Blackburn, and H. Christensen, “Using the outputs of different automatic speech recognition paradigms for acoustic-and bert-based alzheimer’s dementia detection through spontaneous speech.” in In...

    2021

  7. [12]

    Clever hans ef- fect found in automatic detection of alzheimer’s disease through speech,

    Y .-L. Liu, R. Feng, J.-H. Yuan, and Z.-H. Ling, “Clever hans ef- fect found in automatic detection of alzheimer’s disease through speech,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07410, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [13]

    The ustc system for adress-m challenge,

    K. Mei, X. Ding, Y . Liu, Z. Guo, F. Xu, X. Li, T. Naren, J. Yuan, and Z. Ling, “The ustc system for adress-m challenge,” inICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–2

    2023

  9. [14]

    Automated screening for alzheimer’s dementia through spontaneous speech

    M. S. S. Syed, Z. S. Syed, M. Lech, and E. Pirogova, “Automated screening for alzheimer’s dementia through spontaneous speech.” in Interspeech, vol. 2020, 2020, pp. 2222–6

    2020

  10. [16]

    Alzheimer’s dementia recognition using acoustic, lexical, disfluency and speech pause features robust to noisy inputs,

    M. Rohanian, J. Hough, and M. Purver, “Alzheimer’s dementia recognition using acoustic, lexical, disfluency and speech pause features robust to noisy inputs,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.15684, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Alzheimer’s dis- ease detection from spontaneous speech through combining lin- guistic complexity and (dis) fluency features with pretrained lan- guage models,

    Y . Qiao, X. Yin, D. Wiechmann, and E. Kerz, “Alzheimer’s dis- ease detection from spontaneous speech through combining lin- guistic complexity and (dis) fluency features with pretrained lan- guage models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08689, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Enriching complex networks with word embeddings for detecting mild cognitive impairment from speech transcripts,

    L. B. d. Santos, E. A. Corrêa Jr, O. N. Oliveira Jr, D. R. Amancio, L. L. Mansur, and S. M. Aluísio, “Enriching complex networks with word embeddings for detecting mild cognitive impairment from speech transcripts,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.08088, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  13. [20]

    A comparative study of acoustic and linguistic fea- tures classification for alzheimer’s disease detection,

    J. Li, J. Yu, Z. Ye, S. Wong, M. Mak, B. Mak, X. Liu, and H. Meng, “A comparative study of acoustic and linguistic fea- tures classification for alzheimer’s disease detection,” in ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP...

    2021

  14. [21]

    Exploring linguistic feature and model combination for speech recognition based automatic ad detection,

    Y . Wang, T. Wang, Z. Ye, L. Meng, S. Hu, X. Wu, X. Liu, and H. Meng, “Exploring linguistic feature and model combination for speech recognition based automatic ad detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.13758, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Wavbert: Exploiting semantic and non-semantic speech using wav2vec and bert for dementia detection,

    Y . Zhu, A. Obyat, X. Liang, J. A. Batsis, and R. M. Roth, “Wavbert: Exploiting semantic and non-semantic speech using wav2vec and bert for dementia detection,” in Interspeech, vol

  16. [23]

    Exploring low-resource medical image classification with weakly supervised prompt learning,

    F. Zheng, J. Cao, W. Yu, Z. Chen, N. Xiao, and Y . Lu, “Exploring low-resource medical image classification with weakly supervised prompt learning,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 149, p. 110250, 2024

    2024

  17. [24]

    Exploiting prompt learning with pre-trained language models for alzheimer’s disease detection,

    Y . Wang, J. Deng, T. Wang, B. Zheng, S. Hu, X. Liu, and H. Meng, “Exploiting prompt learning with pre-trained language models for alzheimer’s disease detection,” inICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2023...

    2023

  18. [25]

    Bert: Pre- training of deep bidirectional transformers for language under- standing,

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “Bert: Pre- training of deep bidirectional transformers for language under- standing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach,

    Y . Liu, M. Ott, N. Goyal, J. Du, M. Joshi, D. Chen, O. Levy, M. Lewis, L. Zettlemoyer, and V . Stoyanov, “Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692, 2019

    1907 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Prompt-learning for short text classification,

    Y . Zhu, Y . Wang, J. Qiang, and X. Wu, “Prompt-learning for short text classification,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2023

    2023

  21. [28]

    Prompt- based learning framework for zero-shot cross-lingual text classi- fication,

    K. Feng, L. Huang, K. Wang, W. Wei, and R. Zhang, “Prompt- based learning framework for zero-shot cross-lingual text classi- fication,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence , vol. 133, p. 108481, 2024

    2024

  22. [29]

    Match-prompt: Improv- ing multi-task generalization ability for neural text matching via prompt learning,

    S. Xu, L. Pang, H. Shen, and X. Cheng, “Match-prompt: Improv- ing multi-task generalization ability for neural text matching via prompt learning,” in Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, 2022, pp. 2290–2300

    2022

  23. [31]

    wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech repre- sentations,

    A. Baevski, Y . Zhou, A. Mohamed, and M. Auli, “wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech repre- sentations,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 12 449–12 460, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak su- pervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, T. Xu, G. Brockman, C. McLeavey, and I. Sutskever, “Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak su- pervision,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 28 492–28 518

    2023

  25. [33]

    The natural history of alzheimer’s disease: description of study cohort and accuracy of diagnosis,

    J. T. Becker, F. Boiler, O. L. Lopez, J. Saxton, and K. L. McGo- nigle, “The natural history of alzheimer’s disease: description of study cohort and accuracy of diagnosis,” Archives of neurology, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 585–594, 1994

    1994

  26. [34]

    MacWhinney, The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk, Volume I: Transcription format and programs

    B. MacWhinney, The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk, Volume I: Transcription format and programs. Psychology Press, 2014

    2014

  27. [35]

    Openprompt: An open-source framework for prompt- learning,

    N. Ding, S. Hu, W. Zhao, Y . Chen, Z. Liu, H.-T. Zheng, and M. Sun, “Openprompt: An open-source framework for prompt- learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.01998, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Speaker identification on the scotus corpus,

    J. Yuan, M. Liberman et al., “Speaker identification on the scotus corpus,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , vol. 123, no. 5, p. 3878, 2008

    2008

  29. [38]

    Longitudinal speech biomarkers for automated alzheimer’s detection,

    J. Laguarta and B. Subirana, “Longitudinal speech biomarkers for automated alzheimer’s detection,” frontiers in Computer Science, vol. 3, p. 624694, 2021

    2021

  30. [39]

    Temporal integra- tion of text transcripts and acoustic features for alzheimer’s diag- nosis based on spontaneous speech,

    M. Martinc, F. Haider, S. Pollak, and S. Luz, “Temporal integra- tion of text transcripts and acoustic features for alzheimer’s diag- nosis based on spontaneous speech,” Frontiers in Aging Neuro- science, vol. 13, p. 642647, 2021

    2021

  31. [40]

    Useful blunders: Can automated speech recognition errors improve downstream demen- tia classification?

    C. Li, W. Xu, T. Cohen, and S. Pakhomov, “Useful blunders: Can automated speech recognition errors improve downstream demen- tia classification?” Journal of Biomedical Informatics, vol. 150, p. 104598, 2024

    2024

  32. [41]

    Speech emotion recognition with asr transcripts: A comprehensive study on word error rate and fusion techniques,

    Y . Li, P. Bell, and C. Lai, “Speech emotion recognition with asr transcripts: A comprehensive study on word error rate and fusion techniques,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08353, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  33. [2021]

    NIH Public Access, 2021, p. 3790

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.