Lyapunov Spectral Analysis of Speech Embedding Trajectories in Psychosis
Authors: Jelena Vasic, Branislav Andjelic, Ana Mancic, Dusica Filipovic Djurdjevic, Ljiljana Mihic, Aleksandar Kovacevic, Nadja P. Maric, Aleksandra Maluckov
Organizations: Institute of Mental Health, Milana Kašanina 3, Belgrade, Serbia · Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovica 6, Novi Sad, Serbia · Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, University of Niš, Višegradska 33, Niš, Serbia · Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, 18-20 ˇCika Ljubina street, Belgrade, Serbia · Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad, Dr Zorana Djindji´ca 2, Novi Sad, Serbia · Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Dr Suboti´ca 8, Belgrade, Serbia · Vinˇca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, National Institute of the Republic of Serbia, University of Belgrade, Mike Petrovi´ca Alasa 12-14, Belgrade, Serbia
We analyze speech embeddings from structured clinical interviews of psychotic patients and healthy controls by treating language production as a high-dimensional dynamical process. Lyapunov exponent (LE) spectra are computed from word-level and answer-level embeddings generated by two distinct large language models, allowing us to assess the stability of the conclusions with respect to different embedding presentations. Word-level embeddings exhibit uniformly contracting dynamics with no positive LE, while answer-level embeddings, in spite of the overall contraction, display a number of positive LEs and higher-dimensional attractors. The resulting LE spectra robustly separate psychotic from healthy speech, while differentiation within the psychotic group is not statistically significant overall, despite a tendency of the most severe cases to occupy distinct dynamical regimes. These findings indicate that nonlinear dynamical invariants of speech embeddings provide a physics-inspired probe of disordered cognition whose conclusions remain stable across embedding models.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Schematic overview of the analysis procedure.
Group
⟨LEmax⟩±σ
<Σ>±σ(Σ)
NLE
Severe
−0.190±0.031
−269.13±13.80
0
Moderate
−0.226±0.047
−295.29±41.31
0
Mild
−0.256±0.052
−319.58±41.37
0
Healthy
−0.199±0.028
−264.53±17.35
0
Table 1: Lyapunov spectrum statistics for word-level sentence embeddings.
Group
<LEmax>
<Σ>
<NLE>
<DKY>
Severe
0.189±0.053
−260.27±29.41
25.86±15.60
66.92±38.46
Moderate
0.238±0.070
−284.99±49.14
34.30±26.31
83.54±63.75
Mild
0.144±0.084
−314.00±63.26
26.11±28.55
63.14±68.41
Healthy
0.341±0.080
−292.94±42.00
63.00±31.97
146.15±71.42
Table 2: Group-averaged Lyapunov spectrum characteristics for BERTić answer embeddings under four-group clinical classification <...> . All quantities are reported as mean ± standard deviation across subjects within each group.
Group
<LEmax>
<Σ>
<NLE>
<DKY>
Psychosis
0.192±0.080
−288.38±54.69
29.19±24.20
72.00±58.35
Healthy
0.341±0.080
−292.94±42.00
63.00±31.97
146.15±71.42
Table 3: LE spectrum statistics for BERTić answer embeddings under two-group classification (Healthy vs. Psychosis). Values are given as mean ± standard deviation.
Group
<LEmax>
<Σ>
<NLE>
<DKY>
Severe
0.189±0.053
−260.27±29.41
25.86±15.60
66.92±38.46
Mild+Moderate
0.193±0.089
−298.73±58.11
30.42±26.95
73.87±64.97
Healthy
0.341±0.080
−292.94±42.00
63.00±31.97
146.15±71.42
Table 4: LE spectrum statistics for BERTić answer embeddings under three-group classification. Values are given as mean ± standard deviation.
Figure 2: Box plots and corresponding mean values of the maximal Lyapunov exponent and the Kaplan–Yorke dimension for answer embeddings in healthy controls and subjects with psychosis.
Figure 3: Box plots and corresponding mean values of the maximal Lyapunov exponent and the Kaplan–Yorke dimension for answer embeddings for subjects stratified in 3 groups: healthy, mild+moderate and severe psychosis.
ID
ICD-10 diag.
PANSS P
PANSS N
PANSS G
PANSS Total
Severity
P1
F20.0
23
31
45
99
Severe
P2
F23
15
24
45
84
Moderate
P16
F20.9
31
26
54
111
Severe
P20
F20.0
29
27
54
110
Severe
P21
F20.1
18
44
49
111
Severe
P24
F29
21
26
51
98
Severe
Table 5: Clinical characteristics of the psychotic cohort. Diagnoses are reported according to ICD-10. Severity groups are assigned based on PANSS total score and are used for stratification in the dynamical analysis.
Group
<LEmax>
<Σ>
Moderate
−0.4698±0.0488
−925.41±39.72
Mild
−0.4826±0.0529
−935.69±31.41
Healthy
−0.5154±0.0577
−952.09±27.52
Severe
−0.4342±0.0432
−929.14±33.30
Table 6: Lyapunov statistics for word embeddings using four-group classification.
Group
<LEmax>
<Σ>
<NLE>
<DKY>
Psychosis
0.241±0.078
−337.827±30.824
51.38±35.74
126.90±85.10
Healthy
0.353±0.096
−318.811±39.555
120.78±58.37
280.28±125.46
Table 7: Lyapunov spectrum statistics for alternative LLM answer embeddings under two-group classification (Healthy vs. Psychosis). Values are given as mean ± standard deviation.
Group
<LEmax>
<Σ>
<NLE>
<DKY>
Severe
0.214±0.065
−317.023±22.146
55.17±37.23
133.70±86.59
Mild+Moderate
0.250±0.082
−346.393±29.796
50.11±36.25
124.64±97.64
Healthy
0.353±0.096
−318.811±39.555
120.78±58.37
280.28±125.46
Table 8: Lyapunov spectrum statistics for alternative LLM answer embeddings under three-group classification.
Group
<LEmax>
<Σ>
<NLE>
<DKY>
Severe
0.214±0.065
−317.023±22.146
55.17±37.23
133.69±86.59
Moderate
0.250±0.099
−349.820±20.819
45.67±30.31
132.82±101.23
Mild
0.251±0.067
−343.346±35.663
54.55±42.77
116.45±75.43
Healthy
0.353±0.096
−318.811±39.555
120.78±58.37
280.28±125.46
Table 9: Lyapunov spectrum statistics for alternative LLM answer embeddings under four-group clinical classification.
Group
Cosine
Euclidean
KL
Hellinger
Bhattacharyya
JS
Severe Psychosis
0.0557 ± 0.0083
4.482 ± 0.343
0.165 ± 0.090
0.200 ± 0.057
0.0616 ± 0.0337
0.0503 ± 0.0263
Moderate Psychosis
0.0508 ± 0.0054
4.276 ± 0.353
0.137 ± 0.079
0.178 ± 0.057
0.0507 ± 0.0320
0.0412 ± 0.0245
Mild Psychosis
0.0537 ± 0.0067
4.432 ± 0.330
0.167 ± 0.075
0.205 ± 0.056
0.0622 ± 0.0281
0.0514 ± 0.0225
Healthy
0.0506 ± 0.0052
4.110 ± 0.228
0.133 ± 0.042
0.184 ± 0.036
0.0480 ± 0.0171
0.0407 ± 0.0135
Table 10: Group-level statistics of QA semantic distances (mean ± SD across subjects).
Large language models (LLMs) with human-like performance on linguistic tasks have transformed the study of language in neurodiverse conditions. LLMs provide representations of linguistic input in the form of high-dimensional vectors (embeddings), and next-token predictions computed from these embeddings. Previous crosslinguistic evidence suggests a complexity reduction in the form of both lower intrinsic dimensionality (ID) of LLM representations and higher mean surprisal (prediction error) in psychosis. We hypothesized that these metrics reflect a general deficit of information compression in psychosis, linked to grammatical organization as what enables predictions in language.We operationalized surprisal difference as the difference between surprisal as estimated from word frequency and surprisal as based on a contextual LM, which is sensitive to grammatical organization over and above lexical concepts. Using a dataset of 144 Turkish speakers, including 106 patients with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (SSD) - 56 with chronic schizophrenia (SZH), 33 with first-episode psychosis (FEP), and 17 with schizoaffective disorder (SZA) - and 38 healthy controls. We report: (1) Surprisal difference is attenuated in all clinical groups relative to controls, independently of word count; (2) Compressibility (intrinsic dimension) is reduced in SZH and FEP; (3) Syntactic complexity and compressibility both predict surprisal difference. These results, further refining an alteration in the geometry of the semantic space in psychosis as previously attested, suggest a broader deficit in information compression in this disorder, with a mechanistic underpinning in the operations of grammar.
Samuele Vallisa, Claudio Palominos, Rui He +6
Grammar and Cognition Lab, Department of Translation & Language Sciences, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain · Department of Neurosciences, Health Sciences Institute, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey. · Department of Psychiatry, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey. +4
This study identifies new depression biomarkers based on the dynamical properties of tract variables, which represent geometric features describing the configuration of the speech articulators. A key advantage of this approach lies in its ability to quantify aspects of the articulatory process that have not been previously explored in the context of depression, namely predictability, complexity, and randomness. These properties are respectively characterised using the Largest Lyapunov Exponent, the Correlation Dimension, and the Sample Entropy. Thorough experiments were conducted on the Androids Corpus, a publicly available dataset comprising 64 speakers diagnosed with depression by clinicians and 54 control speakers with no reported history of mental health conditions. The results indicate that the proposed biomarkers effectively discriminate between the depressed and control speakers, as evidenced by the high Cliffs delta values across both read and spontaneous speech.
Word-aligned prosody is increasingly used to detect depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), yet the stability and clinical relevance of these measurements remain unclear. We examine stability at two levels. At the word level, we ask whether a speaker produces the same word in a similar speaker-specific way across different utterance contexts. At the speaker level, we ask whether averaging prosody across many words produces consistent speaker scores across separate recordings. Drawing on principles of psychological measurement, we compare these representations in four corpora spanning acted, spontaneous, and clinical speech. Word-specific deviations show little cross-context recurrence (0.01-0.16), whereas speaker summaries are highly consistent, reaching 0.997 in ESD, 0.73-0.90 in MSP-Podcast, and 0.84-0.996 in DAIC-WOZ and PTSD-STOP. Despite this consistency, associations with depression or PTSD severity do not exceed 0.15; equivalence tests exclude effects of 0.30 in all analyses and 0.20 in DAIC-WOZ, while within-person associations with daily PTSD symptoms are near zero (∣ρ∣≤0.04). Thus, aggregation yields stable speaker-level prosodic measures, but these measures do not detectably track depression or PTSD severity in the studied corpora. Code is available at https://github.com/jen900704/word-aligned-prosody.
Clinical Mental Health Counseling, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA · Center for Language and Speech Processing (CLSP), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA · College of Connected Computing, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA