Choosing a PEFT Variant for Per-Patient Dysarthric ASR: A Single-Speaker Case Study on Two ASR Bases
TL;DR
A single-speaker case study comparing seven LoRA-family methods on two production bases for one post-stroke Hungarian male speaker with severe dysarthria, finding that attention-projection adapters substantially improve CER on both bases.
Abstract
Per-patient adapters are the preferred production architecture for dysarthric automatic speech recognition (ASR), yet parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) variants have not been compared in the speaker-dependent, per-patient regime. We present a single-speaker case study comparing seven LoRA-family methods (LoRA, QLoRA, AdaLoRA, DoRA, LoHA, VeRA, VB-LoRA) on two production bases (Whisper-large-v3 with Hungarian fine-tuning, and a multilingual Qwen3-ASR-1.7B checkpoint) for one post-stroke Hungarian male speaker (S1, 409 utterances; severe dysarthria on auditory-perceptual clinical assessment). Attention-projection adapters substantially improve CER on both bases. Across three seeds, a paired bootstrap detects no significant LoRA-DoRA difference (p>0.5; 13.86/13.90 % CER on Whisper, 28.10/28.33 % on Qwen3-ASR), so we adopt the simpler, cheaper LoRA. Real 4-bit (NF4) QLoRA is worse on every seed and both bases (14.56/30.09 % CER) with no memory saving at this scale, and LoHA, VeRA, VB-LoRA and AdaLoRA do not reach the LoRA family, though LoHA still gives an 18.6 % relative CER reduction on Whisper. On the same base, full fine-tuning is more accurate (11.43 % CER), but a 115 MB LoRA that also adapts the feed-forward blocks reaches within 0.66 pp of it at approximately 3.7 % of the per-patient storage. A 6-point enrollment grid shows about 5 min of patient audio captures 45.6 % of the zero-shot-to-30-min CER reduction, with further gains at 10 and 30 min (caveat: one speaker, one language, severe post-stroke dysarthria). Training scripts and recipes will be released, source-available under a research-use licence, on publication.
