↓ Skip to main content

Automatic Evaluation of Hypernasality Based on a Cleft Palate Speech Database

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Systems, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Automatic Evaluation of Hypernasality Based on a Cleft Palate Speech Database
Published in
Journal of Medical Systems, March 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10916-015-0242-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ling He, Jing Zhang, Qi Liu, Heng Yin, Margaret Lech, Yunzhi Huang

Abstract

The hypernasality is one of the most typical characteristics of cleft palate (CP) speech. The evaluation outcome of hypernasality grading decides the necessity of follow-up surgery. Currently, the evaluation of CP speech is carried out by experienced speech therapists. However, the result strongly depends on their clinical experience and subjective judgment. This work aims to propose an automatic evaluation system for hypernasality grading in CP speech. The database tested in this work is collected by the Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, which has the largest number of CP patients in China. Based on the production process of hypernasality, source sound pulse and vocal tract filter features are presented. These features include pitch, the first and second energy amplified frequency bands, cepstrum based features, MFCC, short-time energy in the sub-bands features. These features combined with KNN classier are applied to automatically classify four grades of hypernasality: normal, mild, moderate and severe. The experiment results show that the proposed system achieves a good performance. The classification rates for four hypernasality grades reach up to 80.4 %. The sensitivity of proposed features to the gender is also discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Professor 3 8%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 13 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Computer Science 3 8%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Engineering 3 8%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 14 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2015.
All research outputs
#20,265,771
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#999
of 1,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,427
of 263,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#18
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,149 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,904 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.