Motor, Cognitive, or Corpus? What Survives Cross-Lingual Transfer in Speech-Based Parkinsons Disease Detection

Serli Kopar, Sam Gijsen, Abner Hernandez, Paula Andrea Perez-Toro, Kerstin Ritter · Aug 13, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Self-supervised learning (SSL) speech representations achieve strong performance for Parkinson's disease (PD) detection within individual corpora. However, it remains unclear whether these models capture disease-related characteristics or exploit dataset-specific confounds, particularly since most SSL backbones are pretrained exclusively on healthy speech. To investigate this question, we perform a layer-wise analysis of nine SSL speech backbones using a low-capacity logistic regression probe across three languages. We structure the evaluation as multiple scenarios that progressively introduce distribution shifts in participant identity, recording conditions, language, and pathology. Our results reveal two key findings. First, layer selection is highly corpus-dependent: the optimal representation layer is determined primarily by the source dataset rather than by the SSL architecture itself. Second, the transferred discriminative signal lacks pathological specificity: classifiers trained to detect PD assign similarly high probabilities to both PD and dementia speech in the target corpus. These results highlight critical limitations that must be addressed before speech-based pathology recognition models can be reliably deployed in clinical settings.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.