ReviewFolia phoniatrica et logopaedica : official organ of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics (IALP)2026
The Topography of Disfluency in Spoken Language: A Scoping Review.
Review in Folia phoniatrica et logopaedica : official organ of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics (IALP), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpeech disfluencies have been widely studied across speech-language pathology (SLP), linguistics, and engineering. However, the parameters used to describe disfluencies vary considerably across studies, partly because disfluencies are conceptualized differently across disciplines - either as observable speech features or as indicators of underlying speech production processes. As a result, the full range of documented disfluency types remains unclear, and cross-study comparisons are often limited. This scoping review systematically synthesizes existing research to map all documented disfluency types, clarify cross-disciplinary and cross-linguistic inconsistencies, and provide an overview of existing classification frameworks. SUMMARY: Following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines for scoping reviews, online databases (PubMed, Ovid Medline, APA PsycInfo, Linguistics & Language Behavior Abstracts: LLBA, Alexander Street Literature, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library) were searched for papers published from 2000 to 2023, with relevant pre-2000 references included if cited in eligible studies. A total of 69 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 30 from SLP, 16 from linguistics, and 23 from engineering. Disfluency types were grouped into seven broad categories: repetition, prolongation, revision, pause, filler, incomplete production, and nonverbal behaviors. Inconsistencies in terminology and definitions were prevalent across fields, and most frameworks were English-centric, with limited adaptation to other languages. Only 29% of studies applied classification systems to non-English languages, including Mandarin, Cantonese, Spanish, and Turkish. KEY MESSAGES: Terminology and definitions of disfluency types lack consistency across SLP, linguistics, and engineering. Developing a unified, cross-disciplinary, and cross-linguistic classification framework may facilitate more consistent research practices and improve the comparability of findings across studies. Such efforts may also support future clinical and technological applications involving speech disfluency analysis.
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.