Frontiers in oncology · 2026
The tongue may not move, but the voice will: preoperative AI voice cloning for identity preservation in major glossectomy - a prospective feasibility study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dange Prajwal S, Rao Karthik N, Tv Kumareshwar, Shetty Teertha, Kapahtia Radhika, Chaitanya Krishna, Mp Sreeram
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Major glossectomy frequently results in profound speech impairment. We investigated whether a patient's voice could be captured preoperatively and reconstructed using artificial intelligence voice cloning for potential future use as a personalized assistive communication voice during postoperative recovery.
METHODS: In this prospective single-centre feasibility study, adult patients with treatment-naïve carcinoma of the tongue planned for major glossectomy underwent a single approximately 30-60 second preoperative voice recording in a sound-treated room. Voices were cloned offline using the IndicF5 flow-matching text-to-speech model, generating a standardized reading-passage output and a patient-transcript output for each participant. Speaker fidelity was assessed using cosine similarity across three independent speaker-verification encoders, calibrated against each patient's intra-speaker and cohort impostor distributions, alongside mel-cepstral distortion and prosodic feature analysis. Subjective acceptance was assessed using the Personalised Synthetic Voice Acceptance Questionnaire across six domains, completed by patients and family members.
RESULTS: Of 34 enrolled patients, 26 formed the final cohort across four languages. Mean cosine similarity was 0.933 (Resemblyzer), 0.969 (WavLM), and 0.806 (ECAPA-TDNN), with clone scores generally falling within patient-specific intra-speaker distributions and above cohort impostor distributions. Mean mel-cepstral distortion was 7.87 dB. Fundamental frequency and other prosodic measures showed broad cohort-level correspondence with variable individual deviations. Identity-and-Ownership and Authenticity-and-Trust domains scored highest among both patients and family or attenders, while naturalness and emotional acceptance were rated more conservatively.
CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate the feasibility of generating personalised synthetic voices from brief preoperative clinic-grade recordings, with objective speaker similarity and preliminary patient- and family-reported acceptance. The findings support further evaluation of these voices as potential assistive communication tools during postoperative recovery; however, postoperative communication performance and clinical benefit were not evaluated in the present study.
METHODS: In this prospective single-centre feasibility study, adult patients with treatment-naïve carcinoma of the tongue planned for major glossectomy underwent a single approximately 30-60 second preoperative voice recording in a sound-treated room. Voices were cloned offline using the IndicF5 flow-matching text-to-speech model, generating a standardized reading-passage output and a patient-transcript output for each participant. Speaker fidelity was assessed using cosine similarity across three independent speaker-verification encoders, calibrated against each patient's intra-speaker and cohort impostor distributions, alongside mel-cepstral distortion and prosodic feature analysis. Subjective acceptance was assessed using the Personalised Synthetic Voice Acceptance Questionnaire across six domains, completed by patients and family members.
RESULTS: Of 34 enrolled patients, 26 formed the final cohort across four languages. Mean cosine similarity was 0.933 (Resemblyzer), 0.969 (WavLM), and 0.806 (ECAPA-TDNN), with clone scores generally falling within patient-specific intra-speaker distributions and above cohort impostor distributions. Mean mel-cepstral distortion was 7.87 dB. Fundamental frequency and other prosodic measures showed broad cohort-level correspondence with variable individual deviations. Identity-and-Ownership and Authenticity-and-Trust domains scored highest among both patients and family or attenders, while naturalness and emotional acceptance were rated more conservatively.
CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate the feasibility of generating personalised synthetic voices from brief preoperative clinic-grade recordings, with objective speaker similarity and preliminary patient- and family-reported acceptance. The findings support further evaluation of these voices as potential assistive communication tools during postoperative recovery; however, postoperative communication performance and clinical benefit were not evaluated in the present study.