Pathological and more broadly non-canonical speech present significant challenges for automatic phoneme recognition due to systematic deviations from canonical pronunciation and limited availability of labeled clinical speech data. Existing phoneme recognition systems are typically trained on canonical speech and treat phonemes as atomic categorical labels, limiting their ability to detect structured articulatory errors common in speech disorders and accents. In this work, we introduce a linguistically structured approach to non-canonical phoneme recognition that decomposes phoneme prediction into articulatory feature dimensions such as manner, place, and voicing. We implement this formulation using a hierarchical multi-task learning architecture in which task-specific articulatory feature heads learn feature-level representations that are subsequently integrated through a cross-attention-based fusion module to produce phoneme predictions. To address the scarcity and noise of pathological speech labels, we combine this framework with semi-supervised learning via Momentum Pseudo-Labeling (MPL) and propose a cascaded training strategy that progressively introduces articulatory feature tasks while employing staged unfreezing of a pretrained speech encoder. Experiments on L2-ARCTIC, used as a proxy for pathological speech variation, show that the proposed approach achieves substantial improvements in phoneme recognition performance compared to strong baseline architectures, while yielding interpretable error patterns aligned with phonological feature structure. These results suggest that articulatory feature supervision is a promising strategy for robust and interpretable phoneme recognition in non-canonical speech, and motivate future validation on clinically diagnosed pathological speech datasets.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of the IPA consonant inventory and the derived ARPAbet articulatory inventory used in this work. The ARPAbet inventory was constructed from the L2-ARCTIC ARPAbet–IPA phoneme correspondence and organized according to IPA articulatory feature categories.
Figure 2: Hierarchical MTL architecture. (Stage 1) Input audio is first passed into a frozen WavLM backbone, where acoustic and phoneme representations are learned as two separate weighted sums of transformer layers. (Stage 2) Acoustic features are passed into separate articulatory feature estimation heads for consonant, vowel, and type representations. (Stage 3) These, along with the phoneme WavLM features are passed into a cross-attention layer, whose output is residually fused with the phoneme features. (Stage 4) This is then passed through a bidirectional LSTM to capture temporal dependencies before the final phoneme classification head.
Model
PER ↓
Prec
Rec
F1
Canonical Baselines
Wav2Vec2Phoneme
22.76
0.311
0.368
0.337
WavLM-base-plus
28.02
0.281
0.477
0.353
Fine-Tuned Baselines (WavLM-base-plus)
Wav2Vec2Phoneme
14.81
0.540
0.479
0.507
WavLM
14.71
0.545
0.508
0.526
Table 1: Model performance on L2-ARCTIC (Phoneme Error Rate, % )
Model
Error Type
Before
With MPL
Δ (%)
Baseline
Substitutions
3055
3006
-1.60
Deletions
673
705
4.76
Insertions
555
495
-10.81
Cross-class
123
117
-4.88
HMTL
Substitutions
2860
2793
-2.34
Deletions
457
534
16.85
Table 2: Changes in phoneme error types after applying MPL.
Figure 3: Breakdown of within-domain substitution errors by articulatory feature dimensions for the best baseline model.
Category
Metric
Δ (%)
Δ Domain Share (%)
Type
Cross-class
+41.0
-
Articulatory
Place
−3.24
+1.01
Manner
−3.86
+0.66
Voicing
−10.14
−1.67
Height
−5.65
−0.06
Backness
−5.83
−0.07
Table 3: Changes in recognition errors and articulatory feature substitutions between the best baseline (WavLM + Aug + MPL) and the best proposed model (HMTL + CA + Aug + MPL). Δ Domain Share is computed within consonant or vowel substitution classes and denotes normalized shift in error distribution.
Figure 4: Leave-one-out attention head ablation analysis of phoneme error rate (PER). (a) Aggregate increase in PER when ablating heads associated with each phonological feature, showing the relative contribution of different task heads. (b) Heatmap of PER changes for individual head removals (x-axis) across articulatory feature error types (y-axis), where color encodes the change in error relative to the baseline model.
Configuration
PER (%)
All augmentations
13.49
− Noise
13.76
− VTLP
13.80
− Phase perturbation
13.83
− Prosody (Time-stretch)
13.87
− Pitch shift
13.94
Table 4: Leave-one-out ablation of audio augmentations.
ARPA
IPA
L2-Arctic Substitute
Example
Comments
-
HH
am”ma:m
Arabic pharyngeal
-
SH
Mandarin retroflex fricative
-
k h
K HH
k h a:na:
Hindi aspiration
-
J
Y
kami
Korean nasal
-
B
B
aBa
Spanish bilabial fricative
Q
-
ba
Vietnamese glottal
Table 5: Language-Specific missing or ambiguous mappings between ARPAbet, IPA, and L2-ARCTIC annotations.
Index
ARPA
L2-ARCTIC IPA
Comments
5
AW
aU
diphthong
7
AY
aI
diphthong
9
CH
tS
affricate
13
ER
rhotic allophone of 3
14
EY
eI
diphthong
20
JH
dZ
affricate
Table 6: Diphthongs and IPA symbols with diacritics
ARPA
IPA
L2-Arctic Substitute
Example
Comments
DX
T
bottle /”bA l ” /
approximation
EL
l ”
AH L
bottle /”bA l ” /
closure
EM
m ”
AH M
rhythm /”rID m ” /
closure
EN
n ”
AH N
button /”bVt n ” /
closure
NX
ñ
N
winner /”wIñ@r/
nasalized
WH
W
why /aI/
approximation
Table 7: Phonetic distinctions collapsed by the L2-ARCTIC ARPAbet inventory.
Metric
Best Baseline
Best HMTL
Δ%
PER ( % )
14.46
13.47
−6.8%
Substitutions (within-class)
2889
2732
−5.4%
Deletions
705
520
−26.2%
Insertions
495
501
+1.2%
Cross-class subs.
117
165
+41.0%
Table 8: Change in errors (Best baseline to best model).
Aug 10, 2026·Abner Hernandez, Tomás Arias Vergara, Daiqi Liu +2Speech Processing
Pattern Recognition Lab Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) Erlangen, Germany · Department of Electronic Engineering Universidad de Antioquia Medell´ın, Colombia