Background: Speech models (wav2vec 2.0, HuBERT, Whisper), large language models (GPT, LLaMA), and conversational AI have expanded computational speech analysis from handcrafted acoustic features to dialogue-based neurological assessment. How well these approaches address clinical practice has not been evaluated. Methods: We conducted a narrative review searching PubMed, Google Scholar, and IEEE Xplore, supplemented by Interspeech and ICASSP proceedings. Findings are organized along three layers: acoustic-motor (voice quality, prosody, articulation), language-transcript (lexical, syntactic, semantic, and discourse analysis), and integrated multimodal-conversational (interactive dialogue systems). Traditional acoustic biomarkers provide background; the primary focus is on foundation models, LLMs, and conversational AI. Findings: Speech foundation models outperform handcrafted features on several classification tasks but degrade on severely impaired speech due to domain mismatch with healthy training data. LLMs classify transcripts and score cognitive tests, but operate on text alone and cannot access acoustic-motor information. Conversational AI can administer cognitive screening through naturalistic dialogue, but validation is limited to small single-centre feasibility studies. Prospective clinical validation remains limited. Cross-linguistic generalizability is untested for most methods. Interpretation: The field is moving toward integrated speech-language assessment, but the gap between technical capability and clinical utility remains wide. Closing it requires diverse multilingual datasets, standardized benchmarks, prospective validation, and ethical governance.
Shahar Shelly (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: