Vocal markers of autism: assessing the generalizability of machine learning models
Astrid Sletten Rybner, Emil Trenckner Jessen, Marie Damsgaard Mortensen, Stine Nyhus Larsen, Ruth B. Grossman, Niels BilenbergiD, Cathriona CantioiD, Jens Richardt Møllegaard JepseniD, Ethan WeediD, Arndis SimonseniD, Riccardo FusaroliiD
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) approaches show increasing promise in their ability to identify vocal markers of autism. Nonetheless, it is unclear to what extent such markers generalize to new speech samples collected e.g., using a different speech task or in a different language. In this paper, we systematically assess the generalizability of ML findings across a variety of contexts. We train promising published ML models of vocal markers of autism on novel cross-linguistic datasets following a rigorous pipeline to minimize overfitting, including cross-validated training and ensemble models. We test the generalizability of the models by testing them on i) different participants from the same study, performing the same task; ii) the same participants, performing a different (but similar) task; iii) a different study with participants speaking a different language, performing the same type of task. While model performance is similar to previously published findings when trained and tested on data from the same study (out-of-sample performance), there is considerable variance between studies. Crucially, the models do not generalize well to different, though similar, tasks and not at all to new languages. The ML pipeline is openly shared. Generalizability of ML models of vocal markers of autism is an issue. We outline three recommendations for strategies researchers could take to be more explicit about generalizability and improve it in future studies. LAY SUMMARYMachine learning approaches promise to be able to identify autism from voice only. These models underestimate how diverse the contexts in which we speak are, how diverse the languages used are and how diverse autistic voices are. Machine learning approaches need to be more careful in defining their limits and generalizability.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 32
- FWCI
- 3.61
- Field percentile
- top 6%
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Is voice a marker for autism spectrum disorder? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Riccardo Fusaroli, Anna Lambrechts, … Sebastian B Gaigg·bioRxiv·Jun 24, 2016
- Towards a cumulative science of vocal markers of autism: a cross-linguistic meta-analysis-based investigation of acoustic markers in American and Danish autistic children
Riccardo Fusaroli, Ruth B. Grossman, … Ethan Weed·Autism ResearchPeer-reviewed·Dec 26, 2021
- A Generalizable Speech Emotion Recognition Model Reveals Depression and Remission
Lasse Hansen, Yanping Zhang, … Riccardo Fusaroli·Acta Psychiatrica ScandinavicaPeer-reviewed·Nov 30, 2021
- How Well Does Structural MRI Classify Autism? A Leakage-Free, Site-Aware and Externally Validated Machine-Learning Evaluation in Two ABIDE Cohorts
Barış Akar, Çağatay Elik, Tuğba Altıntaş·bioRxiv·Nov 2, 2026
- Same data, different results? Machine learning approaches in bioacoustics
Kaja Wierucka, Derek Murphy, … Judith Maria Burkart·Methods in Ecology and EvolutionPeer-reviewed·Jul 9, 2025
- Large-Scale Assessment of Language, Speech, and Movement in Autism and ADHD with AI
Aimar Silvan, Lucas C. Parra, … Jens Madsen·bioRxiv·Oct 20, 2025