Organizations: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA · University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ · Duke University, Durham, NC, USA · Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
Automatic speech recognition (ASR) has been extensively studied on neutral and stationary speech, yet its robustness under post-exercise physiological shift remains underexplored. Compared with resting speech, post-exercise speech often contains micro-breaths, non-semantic pauses, unstable phonation, and repetitions caused by reduced breath support, making transcription more difficult. In this work, we benchmark acoustic foundation models on post-exercise speech under a unified evaluation protocol. We compare sequence-to-sequence models (Whisper and FunASR/Paraformer) and self-supervised encoders with CTC decoding (Wav2Vec2, HuBERT, and WavLM), under both off-the-shelf inference and post-exercise in-domain fine-tuning. Across the Static/Post-All benchmark, most models degrade on post-exercise speech, while FunASR shows the strongest baseline robustness at 14.57% WER and 8.21% CER on Post-All. Fine-tuning substantially improves several CTC-based models, whereas Whisper shows unstable adaptation. As an exploratory case study, we further stratify results by fluent and non-fluent speakers; although the non-fluent subset is small, it is consistently more challenging than the fluent subset. Overall, our findings show that post-exercise ASR robustness is strongly model-dependent, that in-domain adaptation can be highly effective but not uniformly stable, and that future post-exercise ASR studies should explicitly separate fluency-related effects from exercise-induced speech variation.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : Framework for evaluating and enhancing ASR robustness on post-exercise speech.
Fig. 2 : Dataset distribution.
Size
Model
# Enc. layers
# Dec. layers
SSL encoder + CTC head
95M
Wav2Vec2-Base
12
–
95M
HuBERT-Base
12
–
95M
WavLM-Base+
12
–
317M
Wav2Vec2-Large
24
–
317M
HuBERT-Large
24
–
TABLE I : ASR models used in this study. Encoder and decoder layers are reported for seq2seq models, while SSL-based CTC models include only encoder layers.
Size
Model
Static Baseline
Post-All Baseline
Post-All Fine-tune (5-fold)
WER(%) ↓
CER(%) ↓
WER(%) ↓
CER(%) ↓
WER(%) (mean ± std) ↓
CER(%) (mean ± std) ↓
74M
Whisper-Base (S2S)
26.86
21.48
27.48
21.87
58.11±8.82
47.62±5.72
95M
Wav2Vec2-Base (CTC)
21.53
10.11
32.30
15.70
22.93±1.61
9.31±0.84
95M
HuBERT-Base (CTC)
31.74
13.68
45.98
21.04
24.75±0.38
9.33±0.27
95M
WavLM-Base+ (CTC)
35.32
14.78
45.45
20.46
22.94±0.43
8.67±0.29
220M
FunASR/Paraformer (L preset)
12.29
6.70
14.57
8.21
13.71±0.96
8.04±0.55
TABLE II : Results for all 9 evaluated model settings.Fine-tune uses 5-fold CV on Post-All (mean ± std). Lower WER/CER is better. Best results in each block are bold ; second-best results are underlined .
Baseline ( Post-All )
Fine-tune ( Post-All , 5-fold)
Size
Model
Fluent
Non-Fluent
Fluent
Non-Fluent
WER(%) ↓
CER(%) ↓
WER(%) ↓
CER(%) ↓
WER(%) ↓
CER(%) ↓
WER(%) ↓
CER(%) ↓
74M
Whisper-Base
27.63
20.96
49.97
48.00
65.98
54.58
95.37
82.03
95M
Wav2Vec2-Base
32.83
15.72
49.41
24.42
17.33
8.71
27.99
14.38
95M
HuBERT-Base
47.26
22.12
70.52
35.86
9.96
5.15
16.69
8.64
95M
WavLM-Base+
44.88
19.22
73.33
35.49
19.17
8.44
30.13
12.56
TABLE III : Fluency split results on Post-All ( n=509 : Fluent=475, Non-Fluent=34). Baseline = inference only; Fine-tune = evaluation of the corresponding 5-fold-trained model on each subgroup split. Lower WER/CER is better. Best results in each block are bold ; second-best results are underlined .
Static Fluent
Static Non-Fluent
Size
Model
WER (%) ↓
CER (%) ↓
WER (%) ↓
CER (%) ↓
74M
Whisper-Base
23.83
19.02
33.89
27.17
95M
Wav2Vec2-Base
19.47
9.25
26.28
12.11
95M
HuBERT-Base
29.20
12.46
37.85
16.64
95M
WavLM-Base+
31.97
13.44
43.09
17.90
220M
FunASR/Paraformer (L preset)
11.12
6.13
15.00
8.01
TABLE IV : Baseline fluency split results on Static . This reference set contains 198 structured paragraph-reading recordings (Fluent=161,Non-Fluent=37).