Detecting depression from speech in elderly patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is complicated by overlapping acoustic effects of cognitive decline. Without disentangling these, classifiers risk learning cognitive rather than depression-specific patterns. We present a Korean elderly speech corpus of 89 MCI speakers collected over three years with concurrent depression (SGDS) and cognitive (MMSE) assessments. Both linear mixed-effects models and partial correlations identify the same pattern: of seven feature groups, only formant features are associated with depression after controlling for cognitive function, while widely used F0 features carry no signal. The F1+F2 subset achieves UAR 0.760 with just 12 features, outperforming both the full eGeMAPS baseline and self-supervised representations. These findings show that concurrent clinical assessments can identify interpretable, depression-specific acoustic markers in populations where cognitive and affective symptoms co-occur.
Figures & tables
Year
N
Dep.
Non-d.
Age
MMSE
SGDS
Y1
61
14
47
77.7 ± 5.8
23.8 ± 3.3
4.5 ± 3.9
Y2
72
13
59
78.5 ± 6.1
23.2 ± 3.5
4.0 ± 4.1
Y3
76
14
62
78.1 ± 6.5
23.4 ± 3.2
4.6 ± 3.3
Total
209
41
168
78.1 ± 6.2
23.5 ± 3.3
4.4 ± 3.8
Table 1: Corpus statistics. Dep. = depressed (SGDS ≥ 8).
Group
Low-level descriptors
#
F0
F0 (semitone), rising/falling slope
10
Energy
Loudness, peaks/sec, equiv. sound level
12
Spectral
Alpha ratio, Hammarberg idx, slope,
17
spectral flux (V/UV)
MFCC
MFCC 1–4 (all frames + V)
16
Voice qual.
Jitter, shimmer, HNR, H1–H2, H1–A3
10
Table 2: Seven feature groups derived from the 88 eGeMAPS features. Each LLD is expanded into mean and standard deviation over voiced (V), unvoiced (UV), or all frames, yielding the total count per group. Temporal features are already computed per utterance, so no mean/standard deviation is applied.
LMM
Pcorr
Group
d
%PC1
β
p
r
p
F0
10
40
+.005
.894
+.049
.478
MFCC
16
24
+.025
.432
+.092
.188
Temporal
5
54
−.034
.281
−.127
.066
Voice qual.
10
38
+.009
.822
−.039
.573
Energy
12
74
−.097
.023∗
−.061
.384
Table 3: Group-level analysis: LMM SGDS coefficient and partial correlation with SGDS controlling for MMSE, age, and gender, applied to PC1 of each group. ∗p<.05 .
Method
d
UAR
Sens
Spec
Acc
F1
Baselines
eGeMAPS full
88
.655
.512
.798
.742
.438
CER + WER
2
.645
.683
.607
.622
.415
SSL + SVM
WavLM-Base
768
.662
.634
.690
.679
.437
wav2vec2-Base
768
.674
.585
.762
.727
.457
Table 4: Depression classification (LOSO CV, N =209). † Linear head (5-seed average); all others SVM RBF C =0.1. Best UAR in bold.
Subgroup
d
UAR
Sens
Spec
Acc
F1
F1
6
.618
.634
.601
.608
.388
F2
6
.747
.756
.738
.742
.534
F3
6
.641
.585
.696
.675
.414
F1+F2
12
.760
.805
.714
.732
.541
F1+F3
12
.662
.634
.690
.679
.437
F2+F3
12
.735
.707
.762
.751
.527
Table 5: Formant subgroup classification. Same setup as Table 4 . Best UAR in bold.
Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Key Laboratory of Biomedical Imaging Science and System, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China