×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

42 comments

Now if only we had one of these for AIDS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440431)

much more practical IMHO

Re:Now if only we had one of these for AIDS (1)

skids (119237) | about 2 years ago | (#40440563)

You know I keep reading about all these cheap noninvasive tests, and then go to the doctor for a checkup and expecting for them to wave some gadget in front of my moutth when I exhale, but... nothing... nothing new at all. Just the usual stuff minus, it seems these days, the ball grabbing.

I guess they are all just stuck in the pipeline.

Re:Now if only we had one of these for AIDS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440779)

much more practical IMHO

We already have an auditory test: if they speak with a lisp.
You might not know of the visual test too: If you see them drinking from a wine glass with their pinky sticking out.

Other neuromuscular syndromes. (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 2 years ago | (#40453499)

Now if only we had one of these for AIDS

Ha ha but seriously...

Other neurological and/or muscular syndromes (such as ALS or Demyelinating diseases like MS) might produce detectable, but distinct, signatures.

I am not really channeling Katherine Hepburn? (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 2 years ago | (#40440439)

Warbling in the voice? She had dystardia worsening in old age.

Re:I am not really channeling Katherine Hepburn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440617)

No just liberalism disease.

Re:I am not really channeling Katherine Hepburn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440915)

... I don't get it.

Needs more study (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#40442087)

Alcoholics undergoing withdrawal show the same shakiness as Parkensons victims, I wonder if an alkie going through DTs would show up as Parkinsons with this test?

Recording (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440445)

"After the tone, please say your full name; your date of birth; your address; and your social security number. And thank you for helping fund Parkinson research. BEEEEP."

Re:Recording (1)

game kid (805301) | about 2 years ago | (#40441121)

It's easy to miss the part just before the ". BEEEEP." where they say " inc. A subsidiary of Parkinson Marketing Group", because they sped it up 'til it became a blip of white noise.

The insurance companies are going to love this (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440449)

When you call to buy insurance

Re:The insurance companies are going to love this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440745)

When you call to buy insurance

Except they don't want you to call, but sign up on line (to save money)....

Re:The insurance companies are going to love this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40442073)

imagine helping this guys service and getting a call back from him... 'umm.. you should probably go see a doctor'

LOL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440607)

Will it also detect when Michael J Fox intentionally goes off his meds before going on TV to exaggerate his symptoms?

Re:LOL (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440889)

Don't think you know what the word exaggerate means.

Re:LOL (2)

kanto (1851816) | about 2 years ago | (#40440939)

Will it also detect when Michael J Fox intentionally goes off his meds before going on TV to exaggerate his symptoms?

It's not like the people on Fox News do anything different.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40442127)

The person you responded to was lying, and is probably a mindless follower of Rush Limbaugh.

  No need to point out that Fox lies too, as everyone knows that, and the only people watching want to be lied to in a desperate attempt to cling to their outmoded superstitions and bigotries..

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40444193)

Your post smacks of projection. (Remember whenever you point your finger, three are pointing at you.)

Re:LOL (1)

kanto (1851816) | about 2 years ago | (#40466295)

Bleh, might as well let you in on the joke... supposedly "Michael J. Fox went off his meds before going on TV to exaggerate his symptoms" and then I say "The people on Fox News do the same". I guess I'll have to be less subtle next time so as to not get a partisan insightful mod.

Really exciting (4, Interesting)

Greenspark (2652053) | about 2 years ago | (#40440705)

This is fascinating! I wonder if this will prove to not only identify patients currently expressing symptoms, but have a predictive quality for determining who will suffer from the disease before other tools can detect it. Having an earlier look at patients and charting the developments in their brain would really improve doctors' understanding and probably advance research into treatments quite a bit! if voice can be found to accurately indicate or even predict a disease like parkinsons... what else can it demonstrate? This might be the beginning of a new form of diagnostic sciences.

Re:Really exciting (2)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 2 years ago | (#40441053)

You mean like this?

Analyzing Speech to Detect Financial Misreporting
www.hbs.edu/units/am/pdf/HMV010410.pdf

How a person talks can already be used to gauge the amount of respect they have for themselves and one another.

Re:Really exciting (0)

Greenspark (2652053) | about 2 years ago | (#40441175)

Yes definitely! But that's behavioral. I'm talking about using someones voice to quantitatively make a medical diagnosis that would be useful regardless of any learned qualities of speech.

Re:Really exciting (1)

Igot1forya (2609733) | about 2 years ago | (#40442559)

I've been doing something like this for years - I can tell you within a small degree of error if someone is retarded simply by what they say rather than how they say it. For example, many will draw this conclusion just by reading my comments :)

Voice stress testing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40441069)

Sounds like voice stress testing. It used to be fun to analyze public speaking in the frequency domain and find the 8 to 12 hertz oscillations. The sound equipment used in the stages at the White House appear to remove these in real time these days, though.

Re:Voice stress testing (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 2 years ago | (#40453305)

It used to be fun to analyze public speaking in the frequency domain and find the 8 to 12 hertz oscillations. The sound equipment used in the stages at the White House appear to remove these in real time these days, though.

Or you may be observing that pathological liars aren't stressed when they lie.

Not News (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40441167)

This is great technology, but it isn't news, no matter what the BBC thinks.

UC Irvine's machine learning repository has had a set of Parkinson's and non-Parkinson's voice prints [uci.edu] up since 2008. (Astute readers will note that it's based on Max Little's work, as is the BBC article. But it's not news.)

How about Hitler? (3, Interesting)

T.E.D. (34228) | about 2 years ago | (#40441325)

It has been speculated that he suffered from Parkingsons [stackexchange.com] . There's certianly plenty of voice recordings of him, covering many years of activity. This ought to be a great way to test both the software and the theories.

ps. Sorry for Godwining the story so early

Re:How about Hitler? (1)

kanto (1851816) | about 2 years ago | (#40442579)

There's plenty of maniacal shouting to audiences, but afaik only one taping [youtube.com] of him talking in conversational tones (in case that makes a difference here). Guardian has some background on how it was taped [guardian.co.uk] ; it was in Finland and the guy who did it was lucky to live after the Germans noticed what had happened.

Re:How about Hitler? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#40442827)

Those recordings lack the fidelity for such analysis.

Re:How about Hitler? (1)

T.E.D. (34228) | about 2 years ago | (#40442897)

They are really that much worse than the fidelity you get from an answering machine off of a telephone line?

Re:How about Hitler? (1)

citizenr (871508) | about 2 years ago | (#40444037)

You dont need fidelity for most machine learning problems. Algorithms pick up details that humans consciousness misses.

FBI Could probably help (1)

Igot1forya (2609733) | about 2 years ago | (#40441581)

They should contact the FBI and NSA - they have everyone's voice on file already. "Sir, you're under arrest for %OFFENSE%! By the time your trial reaches a conviction you will be in final stages of Parkinson's, my condolences"

Called my local number (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40442331)

and the voice recording simply said, "or vagina"

YUO FAIl It!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40443157)

PPor priorities,

Apple has a dandy collection of voice data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40443347)

Ask Apple for their database of Siri request samples

accuracy? how about precision and recall? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40445381)

Since this is machine learning, what does this accuracy measure mean? That for a batch of unknown voices, he predicted the right outcome (parkinson or not-parkinson) 86% of the time?

Here is my algorithm with a precision over 99%:

Parkinson( voice_x) = false;

Re:accuracy? how about precision and recall? (1)

Harvey Manfrenjenson (1610637) | about 2 years ago | (#40449363)

Since this is machine learning, what does this accuracy measure mean? That for a batch of unknown voices, he predicted the right outcome (parkinson or not-parkinson) 86% of the time?

Here is my algorithm with a precision over 99%:

Parkinson( voice_x) = false;

Mod parent up, please. The phrase "86% accuracy" could mean 4 totally different things:

86% of Parkinson's patients are positively flagged by the algorithm (86% sensitivity)
86% of normal patients are NOT positively flagged by the algorithm (86% specificity)
A positively-flagged result implies that you have an 86% chance of having Parkinson's (86% positive predictive value)
A negatively-flagged result implies that you have an 86% chance of not having Parkinson's (86% negative predictive value)

I think that's right (posting with the certainty that someone will correct me if I screwed it up). Anyway, as the parent points out, "86% accuracy" is entirely meaningless without clarification. Such is the state of science journalism.

Also, what's the point of collecting 10,000 voiceprints (or whatever it was) if you don't have actual data on whether the owners of said voiceprint have (or later develop) Parkinson's disease (or similar dysphonia-causing diseases, like benign tremor/tardive dyskinesia/whatever)? How does that possibly help?

Re:accuracy? how about precision and recall? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40453997)

TFA

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...