Typical vs. Atypical Disfluency Classification: Introducing the IIITH-TISA Corpus and Temporal Context-Based Feature Representations

Anil Vuppala; Priyanka Kommagouni; Purva Barche; Sai Akarsh C; Vamshiraghusimha Narasinga

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 27 references

Typical vs. Atypical Disfluency Classification: Introducing the IIITH-TISA Corpus and Temporal Context-Based Feature Representations

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A new feature representation combining perceptually enhanced zero-time windowed cepstral coefficients with shifted delta cepstra classifies typical versus atypical speech disfluencies in Indian English with an average F1 of 85.01%.

desk verdict The IIITH-TISA corpus is a genuine new resource, but the 85% F1 headline is a per-class best-of-configurations average, not the result of any single system. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17149 v1 pith:LCGQFYOJ submitted 2024-11-26 eess.AS

Priyanka Kommagouni , Vamshiraghusimha Narasinga , Purva Barche , Sai Akarsh C , Anil Vuppala This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.AS

keywords speechdisfluencystutteringzero-timewindowingcepstralfeaturesshifteddeltacepstratime-delayneuralnetworkIndianEnglishvoiceassistants

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that a compact set of handcrafted features can tell typical speech disfluencies (pauses, repetitions, and prolongations that occur in fluent speech) apart from atypical ones that mark stuttering. To do this it introduces a new Indian English stammer corpus and extends an existing typical-disfluency corpus, then combines perceptually enhanced zero-time windowed cepstral coefficients with shifted delta cepstra as input to a shallow time-delay neural network. The reported result is an average F1 score of 85.01% across repetition, filled-pause, and prolongation classes, which the paper claims outperforms traditional features such as MFCCs, PLP, and SFCC. If this holds, a lightweight classifier could be inserted after disfluency detection in voice assistants to avoid premature cutoffs for people who stutter, and could support early screening for stuttering in children.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the PE-ZTWCC+SDC feature vector: zero-time windowing estimates a spectrum from only a few samples with a heavily decaying window, and the numerator of group delay plus double differencing and Hilbert envelope yields the ZTW spectrum. Perceptual enhancement (Mel warping, equal-loudness contour, power-law compression) shapes that spectrum like human hearing, and SDC computes blockwise delta cepstra over N-d-p-K parameters to encode local and longer-range temporal movement. The shallow TDNN with two dilated convolutional layers then maps these 104-dimensional frame features to a binary typical-versus-atypical decision per disfluency event.

What would settle it

A strict speaker-disjoint evaluation (e.g., leave-speakers-out cross-validation on the IIITH-TISA and extended IIITH-IED corpora) that reports the same 85.01% average F1 would confirm the claim; a drop below the strong baselines (such as PLP+SDC or ZTWCC+SDC) would refute it. Alternatively, collecting a new cohort of 30 PWS and 30 controls in Indian English and running the pretrained classifier would show whether the features generalize beyond the original recordings.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the specific combination of Perceptually Enhanced Zero-Time Windowed Cepstral Coefficients (PE-ZTWCC) with Shifted $\Delta$ Cepstra (SDC), fed through a shallow two-layer dilated time-delay neural network, is the first feature representation to reliably separate typical from atypical disfluencies in Indian English. The PE-ZTWCC features exploit zero-time windowing's high temporal resolution and group-delay spectral estimation to capture laryngeal tension cues, then apply Mel warping, equal-loudness pre-emphasis, and a one-fifth power-law nonlinearity to mimic human auditory perception. Adding SDC extends the cepstra across multiple frames, and the shallow TDNN with tuned dilation rates captures wider temporal context without overfitting the small dataset. The paper reports per-class F1 scores of 86.98% for repetitions, 85.45% for filled pauses, and 82.78% for prolongations, with an average of 85.01%, and states that these numbers beat traditional feature sets in both plain and SDC-augmented forms.

Load-bearing premise

The reported F1 scores assume the models were evaluated on held-out clips from speakers not used to tune the SDC parameters and network architecture, but the paper never specifies a train/validation/test split or speaker-disjoint protocol.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Voice assistants could use such a classifier to set separate endpointing thresholds for speakers who stutter, reducing premature cutoffs without slowing responses for others.
Early stutter screening in children becomes feasible from short 3-second clips, if the typical/atypical distinction transfers to developmental speech.
The introduced corpus and the extended typical-disfluency corpus give researchers a public benchmark for Indian English disfluency classification.
The strong performance of handcrafted temporal context features suggests that shallow, parametric models can rival deeper networks on small pathological-speech datasets.
Feature engineering choices (base cepstrum, perceptual warping, SDC parameters) have a measurable effect, so future systems can tune these rather than relying solely on model capacity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same PE-ZTWCC+SDC pipeline could be tested on other atypical-disfluency types (e.g., blocks, interjections) and on child speech, since the features target laryngeal tension cues that are not language-specific.
A strict speaker-disjoint evaluation protocol would likely change the reported numbers; the paper's missing split description makes the 85.01% F1 an upper-bound estimate rather than a guaranteed generalization.
The N-d-p-K parameter search in Table IV suggests per-class optimal contexts differ (e.g., prolongations need longer context), so a multi-expert or adaptive-context system might yield further gains beyond a single global feature configuration.
If this feature set works at short clip lengths, it could be integrated into streaming endpointers with low latency, but the paper does not test streaming or noisy conditions.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The IIITH-TISA corpus is the real contribution here. A ten-hour Indian English stammer dataset, aligned with SEP28k conventions, is something the field can use, and the extension of IIITH-IED adds useful typical-disfluency data. The annotation work looks careful, and the decision to publish the corpus fills an actual language gap. Credit where due: that alone makes the paper worth a look.

The feature work is more incremental. PE-ZTWCC is ZTWCC plus standard perceptual processing (Mel warping, equal-loudness, power-law compression), and SDC is well-trodden. The TDNN is a standard shallow architecture. None of that is a problem, but it is not a breakthrough.

The abstract says the method achieves 85.01% average F1 and outperforms traditional features. That claim does not hold up against the paper's own tables. Table IV lists F1 scores for PE-ZTWCC+SDC under different N-d-p-K settings. The repetition best (86.98%) comes from 13-2-3-6, the filled-pause best (85.45%) from 13-2-3-5, and the prolongation best (82.78%) from 13-2-3-7. The average of those three per-class bests is 85.07%, essentially the abstract's 85.01%. But no single configuration in Table IV averages above 84% — the best average is 13-2-3-6 at 84.00%. So the headline number is a composite of different models, each selected per class on what amounts to the test labels. That is an optimistic ceiling, not a generalization estimate.

Just as important, the paper never describes a train/validation/test split or any speaker-disjoint protocol. Clips come from 30 PWS speakers plus the IIITH-IED-E speakers. Without knowing whether the same speaker appears in both training and test partitions, or how hyperparameters were selected, the comparison against MFCC, PLP, and SFCC baselines is not interpretable. There are also no error bars or significance tests. The evaluation section reads like a sketch, not a measurement.

There is a smaller overstatement: the introduction says no published work has used ML for this classification problem. Stutter-event detection exists (SEP28k, FluentNet), and the authors cite those. The specific typical-vs-atypical framing may be underexplored, but that is a narrower claim than the one they actually make.

Who gets value from this paper? Someone building or benchmarking Indian English disfluency corpora, and anyone who wants a cautionary example of how per-class best selection creates illusory gains. The corpus is worth engaging with; the performance claim is not, in its current form.

Recommendation: I would send this to peer review rather than desk-reject, because the dataset contribution deserves scrutiny and the evaluation flaw is fixable. The authors need to specify the split, report a single fixed configuration with error bars, and stop reporting composites of per-class bests. With that, the paper could be a solid resource.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces IIITH-TISA, described as the first Indian English stammer corpus (10 hours, 30 PWS speakers, 3,251 three-second clips), and an extension of the IIITH-IED dataset (IIITH-IED-E) with additional typical disfluency annotations. The authors propose Perceptually Enhanced Zero-Time Windowed Cepstral Coefficients (PE-ZTWCC) combined with Shifted Delta Cepstra (SDC) as input to a shallow Time Delay Neural Network (TDNN) for binary classification of typical versus atypical disfluencies in three categories (repetition, filled pause, prolongation). The central claim is an average F1 score of 85.01%, outperforming traditional features such as MFCC, PLP, and SFCC. The paper also details the corpus creation, annotation procedure, feature extraction equations, and a small hyperparameter study over SDC N-d-p-K parameters.

Significance. If the empirical claim were validly supported, the paper would make two useful contributions: a new resource for stuttering research in Indian English, and a feature representation that captures both spectral and temporal context in a low-data regime. The dataset collection and annotation process, including SEP-28k-aligned labeling and involvement of a speech-language pathologist, is a genuine asset for the community. The feature extraction is grounded in established signal processing and is described with enough detail to be reproduced. However, the performance claim is currently not supported by the reported experiments, so the significance of the method contribution depends on a rigorous re-evaluation.

major comments (4)

[Abstract, Table IV in Section V] The reported average F1 of 85.01% is not achieved by any single system. In Table IV, the best per-class scores come from different SDC configurations: 86.98% for repetitions with 13-2-3-6, 85.45% for filled pauses with 13-2-3-5, and 82.78% for prolongations with 13-2-3-7. The mean of these three per-class bests is 85.07%, essentially the abstract's 85.01%. No single configuration in Table IV has an average above 84% (e.g., 13-2-3-6 averages 84.00%). Thus the headline number is a best-of-configurations composite selected using the test labels, not a generalization estimate of one trained model. The paper must report a fixed SDC configuration and a single model trained under a proper protocol, with its average F1.
[Section V (Results and Discussions)] No train/validation/test split or speaker-disjoint protocol is described anywhere in the paper. The evaluation thus cannot rule out speaker overlap between training and test partitions, nor can it establish whether the SDC parameters (Section IV.A) and TDNN architecture (Section IV.B) were tuned on the test set. Because the paper says the parameters were varied "in steps and top results are tabulated," the reported F1 values are at risk of being optimistic ceiling estimates from test-set peeking. The authors must specify the split, number of speakers in each partition, and how hyperparameter selection was performed (e.g., on a validation set), and they should report results with error bars or confidence intervals.
[Tables II and III, Section V] The comparison against baseline features is presented without any statistical significance testing or repeated-run variance. For example, the gap between PE-ZTWCC+SDC and PLP+SDC in Table III is about 1-3 percentage points depending on the class, which may not be significant given the limited number of speakers (30 PWS plus typical speakers). Without significance tests or confidence intervals, the claim that PE-ZTWCC+SDC "outperforms traditional features" is not established.
[Sections II.A and V] The paper does not state how many clips from each speaker are used, whether the model is trained per disfluency category (binary typical vs atypical) or jointly, or how the datasets are combined (e.g., are IIITH-TISA and IIITH-IED-E simply pooled?). If a single binary classifier is trained across all categories, the label space and loss should be described; if separate classifiers are trained per category, that should be stated. This ambiguity affects the interpretation of all reported F1 scores.

minor comments (4)

[Section IV.C] The text contains a typo: "eN-d-p-K" should be "N-d-p-K".
[Equations (1) and (2), Section III.A] Equation (1) is missing parentheses around the sine term and uses "f or" for "for"; Equation (2) is missing a closing parenthesis. Please correct the formatting.
[Section III.A, Eq. (5)] The notation in Eq. (5) is ambiguous: the exponent 1/5 should be applied to the whole expression X_WE[n,k], e.g., X_WEP[n,k] = (X_WE[n,k])^(1/5), and the sentence describing the inverse transform should clarify that an inverse DFT, not a continuous inverse Fourier transform, is used.
[Table I] The table title says "across three datasets," but IIITH-IED-E is an extension of IIITH-IED and includes the IIITH-IED counts; please clarify whether the counts are cumulative or disjoint.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline 85.01% F1 is a per-class best-configuration composite; no single SDC/TDNN model attains it, so the central performance claim reduces to a grid-search selection rather than a fixed-model prediction.

fitted input called prediction [Abstract and Section V (Tables III and IV)]
"PE-ZTWCC+SDC emerged as the top performer, with F1 scores of 86.98%, 85.45%, and 82.78% for repetition, filled-pause, and prolongation, respectively. ... Among the combinations, 13-2-3-6 achieves the highest F1 score for Repetitions with 86.98%. For Filled Pause, 13-2-3-5 yields the best result at 85.45%, while 13-2-3-7 excels in Prolongation with a top score of 82.78%."

Table IV contains no row with the triple (86.98, 85.45, 82.78). The only way to obtain Table III's PE-ZTWCC+SDC row is to take the per-class maximum over three different N-d-p-K configurations (13-2-3-6, 13-2-3-5, 13-2-3-7). The mean of these three maxima is 85.07%, matching the abstract's 85.01% 'average F1'. Thus the central performance claim is not a prediction of any single fixed model; it is a post-hoc best-configuration composite. Because the paper reports no train/validation/test split, the grid search over SDC parameters is not shown to be independent of the evaluation labels, so the reported 'outperforming' F1 is statistically forced by the selection procedure rather than earned by a held-out model.

full rationale

The feature equations (1)-(7) are self-contained definitions from standard ZTW, PLP, and SDC processing; none is defined in terms of the labels or the F1 numbers, so the feature derivation itself is not circular. The datasets are new and externally anchored to SEP-28k annotation practice. The load-bearing problem is in the reporting of the empirical headline: Table III's PE-ZTWCC+SDC row is a per-class best over SDC configurations from Table IV, and the abstract converts that composite into a single method's 85.01% average F1. No train/validation/test split or fixed architecture is specified, so the claimed superiority over MFCC/PLP/SFCC baselines cannot be separated from the test-time selection of N-d-p-K per class. This is a partial reduction of the main performance claim to a grid-search selection — a fitted statistic presented as a prediction. Self-citations (e.g., [12], [17], [22]) are contextual and do not carry the derivation; there is no uniqueness theorem or ansatz smuggling. Overall partial circularity in the central result, while the feature and corpus work retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on tuned hyperparameters and on dataset-quality and evaluation-split assumptions. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

SDC N-d-p-K temporal parameters = 13-2-3-6 as the overall choice; per-class bests also use 13-2-3-5 and 13-2-3-7
The paper searches over d and K and reports top-scoring combinations, so the headline F1 depends on these hand-chosen values.
TDNN architecture hyperparameters = kernel sizes 5 and 7, dilation rates 2 and 3, 64 and 128 filters, dropout, L2 regularization
Selected after 'extensive experimentation' with no described validation procedure; the reported results are tied to this selection.

assumptions (4)

standard math DFT and group-delay based zero-time windowing yield discriminative spectral cues for tense and laryngeal voice quality.
Inherited from references [16-18] and used to build PE-ZTWCC; not re-derived in this paper.
domain assumption Mel warping, equal-loudness contour, and the 1/5 power law emulate human auditory perception in a way that improves classification.
Used to define PE-ZTWCC; the paper provides no independent evidence that each enhancement contributes.
domain assumption The 3-second clip labels are accurate ground truth for typical and atypical disfluency.
Annotation was done by six undergraduate students with speech-language pathologist review, but no inter-annotator agreement metric is reported.
domain assumption The evaluation uses speaker-independent held-out data.
No split description is provided, yet the reported F1 claim requires that clips in the test set were not used for training or hyperparameter tuning.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Typical vs. Atypical Disfluency Classification: Introducing the IIITH-TISA Corpus and Temporal Context-Based Feature Representations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LCGQFYOJ

@misc{pith2026241117149,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Typical vs. Atypical Disfluency Classification: Introducing the IIITH-TISA Corpus and Temporal Context-Based Feature Representations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LCGQFYOJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17149}
}

read the original abstract

Speech disfluencies in spontaneous communication can be categorized as either typical or atypical. Typical disfluencies, such as hesitations and repetitions, are natural occurrences in everyday speech, while atypical disfluencies are indicative of pathological disorders like stuttering. Distinguishing between these categories is crucial for improving voice assistants (VAs) for Persons Who Stutter (PWS), who often face premature cutoffs due to misidentification of speech termination. Accurate classification also aids in detecting stuttering early in children, preventing misdiagnosis as language development disfluency. This research introduces the IIITH-TISA dataset, the first Indian English stammer corpus, capturing atypical disfluencies. Additionally, we extend the IIITH-IED dataset with detailed annotations for typical disfluencies. We propose Perceptually Enhanced Zero-Time Windowed Cepstral Coefficients (PE-ZTWCC) combined with Shifted Delta Cepstra (SDC) as input features to a shallow Time Delay Neural Network (TDNN) classifier, capturing both local and wider temporal contexts. Our method achieves an average F1 score of 85.01% for disfluency classification, outperforming traditional features.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17149 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

Disfluency in typical and stuttered speech,

R. Lickley, “Disfluency in typical and stuttered speech,” Book series Studi AISV, vol. 3, pp. 373–387, 2017

work page 2017
[2]

Epidemiology of stuttering: 21st century advances,

E. Yairi and N. Ambrose, “Epidemiology of stuttering: 21st century advances,” Journal of fluency disorders, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 66–87, 2013

work page 2013
[3]

Improved speech recognition for people who stutter,

“Improved speech recognition for people who stutter,”

work page
[4]

Awareness and reactions of young stuttering children aged 2–7 years old towards their speech disfluency,

R. A. Boey, P. H. Van de Heyning, F. L. Wuyts, L. Heylen, R. Stoop, and M. S. De Bodt, “Awareness and reactions of young stuttering children aged 2–7 years old towards their speech disfluency,” Journal of communication disorders, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 334–346, 2009

work page 2009
[5]

Stuttering and laryngeal behavior: A review,

C. W. Starkweather, “Stuttering and laryngeal behavior: A review,” Asha Monographs, no. 21, pp. 1–45, 1982

work page 1982
[6]

A comparison of speech envelopes of stutter- ers and nonstutterers,

W. Kuniszyk-J ´o´zkowiak, “A comparison of speech envelopes of stutter- ers and nonstutterers,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 1105–1110, 1996

work page 1996
[7]

Foundations of stuttering,

M. E. Wingate and P. Howell, “Foundations of stuttering,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , vol. 112, no. 4, pp. 1229–1231, 2002

work page 2002
[8]

Spontaneous speech: how people really talk and why engineers should care

E. Shriberg, “Spontaneous speech: how people really talk and why engineers should care.” in INTERSPEECH. Citeseer, 2005, pp. 1781– 1784

work page 2005

Show all 27 references

[9]

Sep-28k: A dataset for stuttering event detection from podcasts with people who stutter,

C. Lea, V . Mitra, A. Joshi, S. Kajarekar, and J. P. Bigham, “Sep-28k: A dataset for stuttering event detection from podcasts with people who stutter,” in Proc. ICASSP. IEEE, 2021, pp. 6798–6802

2021
[10]

Fluentnet: End-to-end de- tection of stuttered speech disfluencies with deep learning,

T. Kourkounakis, A. Hajavi, and A. Etemad, “Fluentnet: End-to-end de- tection of stuttered speech disfluencies with deep learning,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing , vol. 29, pp. 2986–2999, 2021

2021
[11]

Language skills and secondary education in india,

S. M. Mathews, “Language skills and secondary education in india,” Economic and Political Weekly , vol. 53, no. 15, pp. 20–22, 2018

2018
[12]

Towards a database for detection of multiple speech disfluencies in indian english,

S. Garg, U. Mehrotra, G. Krishna, and A. K. Vuppala, “Towards a database for detection of multiple speech disfluencies in indian english,” in 2021 National Conference on Communications (NCC) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–6

2021
[13]

Ksof: The Kassel State of Fluency Dataset – A Therapy Cen- tered Dataset of Stuttering,

S. Bayerl, A. Wolff von Gudenberg, F. H ¨onig, E. Noeth, and K. Ried- hammer, “Ksof: The Kassel State of Fluency Dataset – A Therapy Cen- tered Dataset of Stuttering,” in Proceedings of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference . Marseille, France: European Language Res...

2022
[14]

Magnitude estimation of disfluency by stutterers and nonstutterers,

M. Russell, M. Corley, and R. J. Lickley, “Magnitude estimation of disfluency by stutterers and nonstutterers,” in Phonological encoding and monitoring in normal and pathological speech . Psychology Press, 2005, pp. 260–272

2005
[15]

A comparison of disfluency patterns in normal and stuttered speech,

T. Arbisi-Kelm and S.-A. Jun, “A comparison of disfluency patterns in normal and stuttered speech,” in Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech , 2005

2005
[16]

Breathy to tense voice discrim- ination using zero-time windowing cepstral coefficients (ztwccs)

S. R. Kadiri and B. Yegnanarayana, “Breathy to tense voice discrim- ination using zero-time windowing cepstral coefficients (ztwccs).” in Interspeech, 2018, pp. 232–236

2018
[17]

Enhancing stutter detection in speech using zero time windowing cepstral coefficients and phase information,

N. V . R. Simha, M. S. Ganesh, and V . A. Kumar, “Enhancing stutter detection in speech using zero time windowing cepstral coefficients and phase information,” in International Conference on Speech and Computer. Springer, 2023, pp. 130–141

2023
[18]

Spectro-temporal analysis of speech signals using zero-time windowing and group delay function,

Y . Bayya and D. N. Gowda, “Spectro-temporal analysis of speech signals using zero-time windowing and group delay function,” Speech Communication, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 782–795, 2013

2013
[19]

Warped discrete-fourier transform: Theory and applications,

A. Makur and S. K. Mitra, “Warped discrete-fourier transform: Theory and applications,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Fun- damental Theory and Applications, vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 1086–1093, 2001

2001
[20]

Perceptual linear predictive (plp) analysis of speech,

H. Hermansky, “Perceptual linear predictive (plp) analysis of speech,” the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 1738–1752, 1990

1990
[21]

Power-normalized cepstral coefficients (pncc) for robust speech recognition,

C. Kim and R. M. Stern, “Power-normalized cepstral coefficients (pncc) for robust speech recognition,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on audio, speech, and language processing , vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 1315–1329, 2016

2016
[22]

Detection of replay attacks using single frequency filtering cepstral coefficients

K. R. Alluri, S. Achanta, S. R. Kadiri, S. V . Gangashetty, and A. K. Vuppala, “Detection of replay attacks using single frequency filtering cepstral coefficients.” in Interspeech, 2017, pp. 2596–2600

2017
[23]

A time delay neural net- work architecture for efficient modeling of long temporal contexts

V . Peddinti, D. Povey, and S. Khudanpur, “A time delay neural net- work architecture for efficient modeling of long temporal contexts.” in Interspeech, 2015, pp. 3214–3218

2015
[24]

Approaches to language identification using gaussian mixture models and shifted delta cepstral features

P. A. Torres-Carrasquillo, E. Singer, M. A. Kohler, R. J. Greene, D. A. Reynolds, and J. R. Deller Jr, “Approaches to language identification using gaussian mixture models and shifted delta cepstral features.” in Interspeech. Citeseer, 2002, pp. 89–92

2002
[25]

Preliminaries to a theory of speech disfluency,

E. Shriberg, “Preliminaries to a theory of speech disfluency,” PhD Diss, Univ. of California , 1994

1994
[26]

Phonation in stuttering: A review of current research,

F. J. Freeman, “Phonation in stuttering: A review of current research,” Journal of Fluency Disorders , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 79–89, 1979

1979
[2023]

Available: https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/ speech-recognition

[Online]. Available: https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/ speech-recognition

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Disfluency in typical and stuttered speech,

R. Lickley, “Disfluency in typical and stuttered speech,” Book series Studi AISV, vol. 3, pp. 373–387, 2017

work page 2017

[2] [2]

Epidemiology of stuttering: 21st century advances,

E. Yairi and N. Ambrose, “Epidemiology of stuttering: 21st century advances,” Journal of fluency disorders, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 66–87, 2013

work page 2013

[3] [3]

Improved speech recognition for people who stutter,

“Improved speech recognition for people who stutter,”

work page

[4] [4]

Awareness and reactions of young stuttering children aged 2–7 years old towards their speech disfluency,

R. A. Boey, P. H. Van de Heyning, F. L. Wuyts, L. Heylen, R. Stoop, and M. S. De Bodt, “Awareness and reactions of young stuttering children aged 2–7 years old towards their speech disfluency,” Journal of communication disorders, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 334–346, 2009

work page 2009

[5] [5]

Stuttering and laryngeal behavior: A review,

C. W. Starkweather, “Stuttering and laryngeal behavior: A review,” Asha Monographs, no. 21, pp. 1–45, 1982

work page 1982

[6] [6]

A comparison of speech envelopes of stutter- ers and nonstutterers,

W. Kuniszyk-J ´o´zkowiak, “A comparison of speech envelopes of stutter- ers and nonstutterers,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 1105–1110, 1996

work page 1996

[7] [7]

Foundations of stuttering,

M. E. Wingate and P. Howell, “Foundations of stuttering,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , vol. 112, no. 4, pp. 1229–1231, 2002

work page 2002

[8] [8]

Spontaneous speech: how people really talk and why engineers should care

E. Shriberg, “Spontaneous speech: how people really talk and why engineers should care.” in INTERSPEECH. Citeseer, 2005, pp. 1781– 1784

work page 2005