Comparing Human and Automatic Recognition of Dutch Dysarthric Continuous Speech: A Case Study
Abstract
Domain fit: Niche / domain-specific · No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.
In our goal to develop personalised dysarthric speech recognition (DSR) models, this study compared the recognition performances of human listeners and those of three state-of-the-art, off-the-shelf ASR systems (Whisper-large-V3, Google Chirp 3, and Omnilingual) on the recognition of Dutch continuous read and spontaneous speech from a single speaker with severe dysarthria. Results showed that both humans listeners and the three off-the-shelf ASR systems exhibit word error rates (WER) exceeding 70% on average, indicating that DSR is highly challenging for both humans and ASR systems. Fine-tuning on the dysarthric speech significantly reduced WER. Although overall WERs are still quite high (>23%), the personalised DSR models outperformed the human listeners, and performance is getting closer to being useful for supporting day-to-day communication of dysarthric speakers. Future research should focus on improving personalized DSR on spontaneous speech and longer utterances in the case of read speech, with a specific focus on particular phonemes.
Results and benchmarks
In our goal to develop personalised dysarthric speech recognition (DSR) models, this study compared the recognition performances of human listeners and those of three state-of-the-art, off-the-shelf ASR systems (Whisper-large-V3, Google Chirp 3, and Omnilingual) on the recognition of Dutch continuous read and spontaneous speech from a single speaker with severe dysarthria.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPX