ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2018
Clinician vs. Machine: Estimating Vocalizations Rates in Young Children With Developmental Disorders.
Article in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The use of Language ENvironment Analysis in autism research: A systematic review.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2025Pooled it
- Accuracy of the Language Environment Analysis System Segmentation and Metrics: A Systematic Review.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2020Pooled it
- Performance and Biases of the LENA and ACLEW Algorithms in Analyzing Language Environments in Down, Fragile X, Angelman Syndromes, and Populations at Elevated Likelihood for Autism.Developmental science · 2026Article
- The Stability and Validity of Automated Indices of Vocal Development in Infants With Autistic and Non-Autistic Siblings.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the reliability of an automated language analysis system, the Language Environment Analysis (LENA), compared with a human transcriber to determine the rate of child vocalizations during recording sessions that were significantly shorter than recommended for the automated device. Method: Participants were 6 nonverbal male children between the ages of 28 and 46 months. Two children had autism diagnoses, 2 had Down syndrome, 1 had a chromosomal deletion, and 1 had developmental delay. Participants were recorded by the LENA digital language processor during 14 play-based interactions with a responsive adult. Rate of child vocalizations during each of the 84 recordings was determined by both a human transcriber and the LENA software. Results: A statistically significant difference between the 2 methods was observed for 4 of the 6 participants. Effect sizes were moderate to large. Variation in syllable structure did not explain the difference between the 2 methods. Vocalization rates from the 2 methods were highly correlated for 5 of the 6 participants. Conclusions: Estimates of vocalization rates from nonverbal children produced by the LENA system differed from human transcription during sessions that were substantially shorter than the recommended recording length. These results confirm the recommendation of the LENA Foundation to record sessions of at least 1 hr.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.