ArticleJASA express letters2024
Evaluating acoustic representations and normalization for rhoticity classification in children with speech sound disorders.
Article in JASA express letters, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Rhotic Generalization Is More Rapid in Biofeedback Than Motor-Based Treatment for Residual Speech Sound Disorder: Secondary Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Trial
- Decoding Gender in Cough Sounds: A Transformer-Based Analysis.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Perceptual Ratings Predict Speech Inversion Articulatory Kinematics in Childhood Speech Sound Disorders.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Speech Therapy for /ɹ/: A Single-Case Experimental Study.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The effects of different acoustic representations and normalizations were compared for classifiers predicting perception of children's rhotic versus derhotic /ɹ/. Formant and Mel frequency cepstral coefficient (MFCC) representations for 350 speakers were z-standardized, either relative to values in the same utterance or age-and-sex data for typical /ɹ/. Statistical modeling indicated age-and-sex normalization significantly increased classifier performances. Clinically interpretable formants performed similarly to MFCCs and were endorsed for deep neural network engineering, achieving mean test-participant-specific F1-score = 0.81 after personalization and replication (σx = 0.10, med = 0.83, n = 48). Shapley additive explanations analysis indicated the third formant most influenced fully rhotic predictions.
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.