Non-native Children's Automatic Speech Assessment Challenge (NOCASA)

Giampiero Salvi; Mikko Kurimo; Tam\'as Gr\'osz; Yaroslav Getman

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Non-native Children's Automatic Speech Assessment Challenge (NOCASA)

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read NOCASA releases a public benchmark for scoring children's Norwegian L2 pronunciation, with a best baseline UAR of 36.37%.

desk verdict Useful public benchmark for a missing task, but the headline performance ranking rests on 8 test speakers and utterance-level CIs, so treat the performance comparisons cautiously. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20678 v2 pith:N3FM2STP submitted 2025-04-29 cs.CL eess.AS

Yaroslav Getman , Tamás Grósz , Mikko Kurimo , Giampiero Salvi This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLeess.AS

keywords pronunciationassessmentchildren'sspeechNorwegiansecond-languagelearnerswav2vec2.0benchmarklow-resourceaudioclassification

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 introduces NOCASA, a benchmark for automatically assessing how well young second-language learners pronounce Norwegian single words. It releases a pseudo-anonymized corpus, TeflonNorL2, with 7,857 training and 1,460 test recordings from children rated 1 to 5 stars by human experts. It also provides two baselines: a traditional SVM using hand-crafted acoustic features, and a multi-task wav2vec 2.0 model that keeps an ASR head alongside the rating head. The multi-task model reaches 36.37% unweighted average recall on the test set, which the paper offers as the reference point for future systems. The purpose is to give the community a standardized, public evaluation resource for a task that previously had none.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the paired corpus-plus-baseline setup. TeflonNorL2 provides 205 words with orthographic transcriptions and expert 1–5 ratings; the multi-task wav2vec 2.0 baseline carries the argument by keeping the original CTC/ASR head and adding a rating head on the last Transformer layer, using target words as ASR references only for high-scoring (4–5 star) utterances. The SVM/ComParE 16 baseline supplies an interpretable contrast. Together they define the evaluation protocol: UAR as primary metric, with accuracy, MAE, 95% bootstrap confidence intervals, and optional latency and explainability analyses.

What would settle it

A reader could refute the benchmark's usefulness by re-splitting the released data into a new held-out set that includes more speakers from underrepresented language backgrounds and checking whether the wav2vec 2.0 baseline still beats the SVM baseline by the same margin, or whether the ranking of submitted systems is preserved.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a usable public benchmark now exists for Norwegian L2 children's single-word pronunciation assessment, anchored by the TeflonNorL2 corpus and two reproducible baselines. On the released test set, the best official baseline, a multi-task wav2vec 2.0 model built on a Norwegian ASR base, achieves 36.37% UAR (95% CI 34.30–38.81), 54.45% accuracy, and 0.55 MAE, outperforming the SVM baseline (22.14% UAR). The paper also observes that the wav2vec model's latent clusters separate pronunciation levels only partially after fine-tuning, and that the rarest category (1 star) is never predicted; these findings are framed as directions for participants. The two top submitted systems, using regression with score calibration and goodness-of-pronunciation with ordinal loss, both outperform the baselines, supporting the benchmark's ability to distinguish stronger methods.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the released test set, with only 8 speakers and only the most common first-language backgrounds, is representative enough to estimate system quality and rank competing methods for the broader population of Norwegian L2 children.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any future system can be compared against two released baselines on the same fixed train/test split, making results across teams directly comparable.
The multi-task wav2vec 2.0 design shows that keeping an ASR objective alongside the rating head is a viable way to use expected-word information under limited data.
The reported performance leaves substantial room for improvement (36.37% UAR versus 20% chance-level), so the benchmark is positioned to track progress rather than declare the task solved.
The top two submitted systems, using score calibration and goodness-of-pronunciation with ordinal loss, outperform both baselines, suggesting the benchmark can distinguish stronger methods.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's release of speaker characteristics only after the challenge means early users cannot control for speaker identity; a natural next step would be a speaker-disjoint cross-validation study on the training set to estimate how much the 8-speaker test set drives the ranking.
Because ASR references are used only for 4–5 star recordings, the baseline may implicitly learn that high scores correlate with word-recognizability; extending this to all scores, or using a separate ASR pass, is a testable variant the paper leaves open.
The low UAR on the 1-star category suggests a ceiling effect from class imbalance; techniques like class-weighted losses or synthetic augmentation for the rarest category could be evaluated directly against the released baselines.
An implication for real-world deployment: the measured 30–50 ms per 3-second clip on a single GPU suggests the wav2vec 2.0 baseline is fast enough for real-time feedback, but whether that holds on edge devices used in a mobile app is not covered by the paper.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Colleague,

Worth a look if you work on low-resource speech assessment. The paper's real contribution is the public benchmark: a Norwegian L2 children's single-word pronunciation corpus, TeflonNorL2, with 7,857 training and 1,460 test recordings, human-rated on a 1 to 5 scale, plus two reproducible baselines and the results of the challenge participants. That closes a genuine gap; before this, Norwegian had no public APA data for children. The baselines are standard—SVM on ComParE16 and multi-task wav2vec2—but the release and the fixed train/test split are useful, and the code is available. The paper is honest about its limits: the rarest class (1 star) is never predicted, test speakers only cover the most common L1 backgrounds, and there is no dev set.

The soft spot is the statistical anchor. All performance claims sit on 1,460 utterances from 8 speakers. The reported confidence intervals are utterance-level bootstrap, which treats those 1,460 samples as roughly independent. They are not: each speaker contributes about 180 recordings, same child, same age, same L1, same recording session, so within-speaker correlation is strong. A speaker-cluster bootstrap would likely widen the intervals substantially. This matters because the intervals already overlap between Team 1 and the best baseline; with speaker-level resampling, the claim that the participants "managed to outperform both baselines" may not hold statistically. The resource is still valuable; the ranking evidence is just weaker than the table suggests.

Two smaller issues: no inter-annotator agreement statistics, which matters for a human-rated benchmark, and the participant descriptions are too thin to reproduce, though they are cited to their own MLSP papers, so that is partly a venue constraint. The citation pattern is fine; the self-citations are to the earlier corpus paper and the multi-task wav2vec2 method, which are the correct anchors.

My bottom line: this is a genuine contribution for the speech assessment community, mainly because of the data release and the reproducible baselines, not because of any methodological novelty. It deserves peer review and, with revisions, publication. I'd ask the authors to redo the CIs with speaker-cluster bootstrap, add per-speaker results or a mixed-effects analysis, and soften the ranking claims. If the corpus is as clean as it looks after that, I'd cite it.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents NOCASA, a data competition for automatic pronunciation assessment of Norwegian L2 children's single-word speech. It releases the TeflonNorL2 corpus (7,857 training and 1,460 test utterances after cleaning), with expert ratings on a 1-5 star scale, and describes two official baselines: an SVM trained on ComParE 2016 features and a multi-task wav2vec 2.0 model. The multi-task wav2vec 2.0 model achieves a UAR of 36.37% on the held-out test set, and two participant systems are reported to surpass this baseline. The paper also discusses evaluation metrics, model robustness to random seeds, inference speed, and model interpretability.

Significance. If the resource works as claimed, it fills a clear gap: there is no previous public L2 children's pronunciation corpus for Norwegian. The paper's strengths include the public release of pseudo-anonymized data, fixed training/test splits, a code repository for the baselines, held-out test labels that were not used in model development, multiple evaluation metrics, bootstrapped confidence intervals, and explicit robustness checks across random seeds. The challenge format with a limited number of test trials and peer-reviewed participant papers is appropriate for benchmarking. The main weakness is that the test set is small and narrow, so the quantitative ranking evidence is less strong than the prose suggests; nevertheless, the corpus and baselines are a valuable community resource even if the performance comparisons need to be treated with caution.

major comments (2)

[Section 4, Table 2] The 95% confidence intervals in Table 2 are computed by resampling utterances, but the 1,460 test utterances come from only 8 speakers. Because repeated utterances by the same child are strongly correlated, the effective sample size for speaker-level generalization is close to 8, not 1,460, so the reported intervals understate uncertainty. This matters for the Section 7 statements that Team 1 'managed to outperform both baselines' and Team 2 was 'the winning solution': Team 1's CI (33.13-53.80) already overlaps the MT w2v2 CI (34.30-38.81), and speaker-cluster resampling would likely widen all intervals further. Please recompute the intervals with speaker-level clustering (for example, bootstrapping over speakers) or add an explicit caveat that the ranking is based on point estimates and may not be statistically reliable.
[Section 4, Abstract] The abstract states that TeflonNorL2 contains 10,334 recordings from 44 speakers, but Section 4 reports that after removing score-0 recordings and duplicate word attempts the final released data contain 7,857 training and 1,460 test audio files. Please reconcile these numbers and state clearly which quantity corresponds to the released corpus, since readers may otherwise be confused about the actual size of the benchmark.

minor comments (5)

[Section 4] The test set contains only 8 speakers and only the most common L1 backgrounds, so the absolute UAR values and system rankings may not generalize to the full population of Norwegian L2 children; please state this limitation explicitly in the conclusions and avoid implying population-level conclusions.
[Section 5] The SVM baseline is described as using 'default parameters', but no kernel or cost value is given; please provide the concrete hyperparameters or explicitly refer to the repository line numbers for full reproducibility.
[Section 6] The observation that the 1-star class is never predicted is acknowledged, but reporting the per-class recall or a confusion matrix for the baselines would make the imbalance problem more concrete for participants.
[Section 4] No inter-annotator agreement statistics are provided for the human ratings; a short summary or a reference to the specific section of [9] containing such statistics would help readers assess label noise.
[Table 2] The confidence intervals for Team 1 and Team 2 are very wide; consider also reporting the number of test utterances per rating class or per speaker to make the source of this variability transparent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: NOCASA baselines are trained on a public training split and evaluated on a held-out test set whose labels are not used in development, so the central UAR claim is an independent empirical result.

full rationale

The paper makes no first-principles derivation; it releases a corpus and reports measured baseline performance. The central empirical claim, that the multi-task wav2vec 2.0 model achieves 36.37% UAR, comes from training on the provided training split (with a 10% validation subset used only for checkpoint selection) and evaluating on the held-out test split whose labels are not used in model development. No quantity in the paper is defined in terms of another fitted quantity: the SVM and wav2vec2 baselines are conventional methods, and reference [13], a prior work by some of the authors, is cited only as the architecture recipe, not as evidence that the baseline must perform at a given level. The corpus release and benchmark framing do not rename or redefine the target metric; UAR, ACC, and MAE are standard external metrics applied to unseen data. The statistical weaknesses noted elsewhere (8-speaker test set, utterance-level bootstrap confidence intervals) affect confidence and generalizability but are not circularity: they concern estimation error, not definitional equivalence. Accordingly, no circular step can be quoted, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The paper introduces no theoretical constructs or invented entities. It depends on empirical assumptions about label quality, test-set representativeness, and the suitability of pretrained features, plus standard statistical assumptions for bootstrapped confidence intervals. The listed free parameters are training hyperparameters that affect the reported baseline scores.

free parameters (4)

wav2vec2 learning rate = 2e-4
Chosen for the baseline training (Sec. 5) and not systematically tuned; affects baseline UAR.
number of epochs = 20
Training budget chosen by hand, with checkpoint selection on a 10% validation split (Sec. 5); affects baseline performance.
batch size = 10
Selected for the baseline and reported in Sec. 5; affects optimization but is not a scientifically meaningful parameter.
SVM class weights = not specified; class-weighting technique used
Used to handle class imbalance in the SVM baseline (Sec. 5); exact weights are not reported, so reproduction depends on the library defaults.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Human expert ratings on the 1 to 5 star scale are valid and sufficiently reliable ground truth for pronunciation accuracy.
The whole benchmark depends on label quality; the paper refers to [9] for collection and annotation criteria and acknowledges score noise and inter-annotator disagreement in Sec. 2 without quantifying it.
domain assumption The 8-speaker held-out test set, containing only the most common L1 backgrounds, is representative enough to rank systems by UAR.
Stated in Sec. 4: 'given the relatively low number of speakers in the test set, only the most common linguistic backgrounds were included'. The small, skewed test set is the basis for all reported performance comparisons.
domain assumption The Norwegian ASR wav2vec2 model (NbAiLab nb-wav2vec2-300m-bokmaal) provides a suitable feature initialization for the pronunciation-rating head.
Used as the base model in Sec. 5; its quality on child L2 speech is not independently evaluated in this paper.
standard math Bootstrapped confidence intervals are appropriate for quantifying uncertainty on this test set.
Used in Sec. 5 via the ConfidenceIntervals tool; standard resampling assumptions may be questionable with only 8 speakers but are a conventional choice.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-native Children's Automatic Speech Assessment Challenge (NOCASA)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N3FM2STP

@misc{pith2026250420678,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-native Children's Automatic Speech Assessment Challenge (NOCASA)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N3FM2STP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20678}
}

read the original abstract

This paper presents the "Non-native Children's Automatic Speech Assessment" (NOCASA) - a data competition part of the IEEE MLSP 2025 conference. NOCASA challenges participants to develop new systems that can assess single-word pronunciations of young second language (L2) learners as part of a gamified pronunciation training app. To achieve this, several issues must be addressed, most notably the limited nature of available training data and the highly unbalanced distribution among the pronunciation level categories. To expedite the development, we provide a pseudo-anonymized training data (TeflonNorL2), containing 10,334 recordings from 44 speakers attempting to pronounce 205 distinct Norwegian words, human-rated on a 1 to 5 scale (number of stars that should be given in the game). In addition to the data, two already trained systems are released as official baselines: an SVM classifier trained on the ComParE_16 acoustic feature set and a multi-task wav2vec 2.0 model. The latter achieves the best performance on the challenge test set, with an unweighted average recall (UAR) of 36.37%.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Comparison of End-to-end Speech Assessment Models for the NOCASA 2025 Challenge
cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The best model, GOP-CTC-AF-E2E, combines alignment-free CTC goodness-of-pronunciation features with a transformer and end-to-end fine-tuning, achieving the top leaderboard scores in the NOCASA 2025 challenge.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Developing an ai-assisted low-resource spoken language learning app for children,

Y . Getman, N. Phan, R. Al-Ghezi, et al., “Developing an ai-assisted low-resource spoken language learning app for children,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 86 025– 86 037, 2023. DOI: 10 . 1109 / ACCESS . 2023 . 3304274

work page 2023
[2]

Auto- matic pronunciation assessment - a review,

Y . El Kheir, A. Ali, and S. A. Chowdhury, “Auto- matic pronunciation assessment - a review,” in Find- ings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, H. Bouamor, J. Pino, and K. Bali, Eds., Singapore: Association for Computational Linguistics, Dec. 2023, pp. 8304–8324. DOI: 10 . 18653 / v1 / 2023 . findings - emnlp . 557. [Online]. Ava...

work page 2023
[3]

The CMU Kids Corpus LDC97S63,

J. M. Maxine Eskenazi and D. Graff, “The CMU Kids Corpus LDC97S63,” Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, 1997. DOI: 10.35111/b4v0-ff65

work page doi:10.35111/b4v0-ff65 1997
[4]

CSLU: Kids‘ Speech Version 1.1, LDC2007S18,

J.-P. H. Khaldoun Shobaki and R. Cole, “CSLU: Kids‘ Speech Version 1.1, LDC2007S18,” Philadelphia: Lin- guistic Data Consortium, 1997. DOI: 10 . 35111 / q5tn-8096

work page 1997
[5]

MyST Children’s Conversational Speech LDC2021S05,

R. C. Sameer Pradhan and W. Ward, “MyST Children’s Conversational Speech LDC2021S05,” Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, 2021. DOI: 10.35111/ cyxy-p432

work page 2021
[6]

Jasmin-spraakcorpus (version 1.0),

O. v. H. C. Cucchiarini H. V . Hamme and F. Smits, “Jasmin-spraakcorpus (version 1.0),” Available at the Dutch Language Institute: http://hdl.handle.net/10032/tm- a2-j7, 2008

work page 2008
[7]

The slt 2021 children speech recognition challenge: Open datasets, rules and baselines,

F. Y . et al., “The slt 2021 children speech recognition challenge: Open datasets, rules and baselines,” inProc. IEEE Spoken Lang. Tech. Workshop (SLT) , described in Proc. IEEE Spoken Lang. Tech. Workshop (SLT) 2021, Shenzen, China, 2021

work page 2021
[8]

kidsTALC: A Corpus of 3- to 11-year-old German Children’s Con- nected Natural Speech,

L. Rumberg, C. Gebauer, H. Ehlert, et al., “kidsTALC: A Corpus of 3- to 11-year-old German Children’s Con- nected Natural Speech,” in Proc Interspeech , 2022, pp. 5160–5164. DOI: 10.21437/interspeech. 2022-330

doi:10.21437/interspeech 2022

Show all 19 references

[9]

Collecting linguistic resources for assessing children‘s pronunciation of Nordic languages,

A. M. H. Olstad, A. Smolander, S. Str ¨ombergsson, et al. , “Collecting linguistic resources for assessing children‘s pronunciation of Nordic languages,” in Pro- ceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation...

2024
[10]

Liblinear: A library for large linear classi- fication,

R.-E. Fan, K.-W. Chang, C.-J. Hsieh, X.-R. Wang, and C.-J. Lin, “Liblinear: A library for large linear classi- fication,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 9, pp. 1871–1874, Jun. 2008, ISSN : 1532-4435

2008
[11]

The inter- speech 2016 computational paralinguistics challenge: Deception, sincerity & native language,

B. Schuller, S. Steidl, A. Batliner, et al., “The inter- speech 2016 computational paralinguistics challenge: Deception, sincerity & native language,” inInterspeech 2016, 2016, pp. 2001–2005. DOI: 10.21437/Inte rspeech.2016-129

2016 doi
[12]

Logistic regression in rare events data,

G. King and L. Zeng, “Logistic regression in rare events data,” Political analysis, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 137– 163, 2001

2001
[13]

Multi-task wav2vec2 serving as a pronunciation train- ing system for children,

Y . Getman, R. Al-Ghezi, T. Grosz, and M. Kurimo, “Multi-task wav2vec2 serving as a pronunciation train- ing system for children,” in 9th Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education (SLaTE) , 2023, pp. 36–40. DOI: 10.21437/SLaTE.2023-8

2023 doi
[14]

Boosting Norwegian automatic speech recog- nition,

J. De La Rosa, R.-A. Braaten, P. Kummervold, and F. Wetjen, “Boosting Norwegian automatic speech recog- nition,” in Proceedings of the 24th Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics (NoDaLiDa), T´orshavn, Faroe Islands: University of Tartu Library, May 2023, pp. 555–564. ...

2023
[15]

Ferrer and P

L. Ferrer and P. Riera, Confidence Intervals for evalua- tion in machine learning. [Online]. Available:https: //github.com/luferrer/ConfidenceInte rvals
[16]

Uniform manifold ap- proximation and projection,

J. Healy and L. McInnes, “Uniform manifold ap- proximation and projection,” Nature Reviews Methods Primers, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 82, 2024

2024
[17]

On calibration of speech classification models: Insights from energy-based model investigations,

Y . Hao, C. Hu, Y . Gao, S. Zhang, and J. Feng, “On calibration of speech classification models: Insights from energy-based model investigations,” in Inter- speech 2024, 2024, pp. 3175–3179. DOI: 10.21437/ Interspeech.2024-1643

2024
[18]

Automated pronunciation scoring of child l2 learners with score calibration for imbalanced distribu- tions,

T. Yuuki, “Automated pronunciation scoring of child l2 learners with score calibration for imbalanced distribu- tions,” in Proc. IEEE MLSP, 2025

2025
[19]

Comparison of end- to-end speech assessment models for the nocasa 2025 challenge,

A. ˇZavoronkov and T. Alum ¨ae, “Comparison of end- to-end speech assessment models for the nocasa 2025 challenge,” in Proc. IEEE MLSP, 2025

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Developing an ai-assisted low-resource spoken language learning app for children,

Y . Getman, N. Phan, R. Al-Ghezi, et al., “Developing an ai-assisted low-resource spoken language learning app for children,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 86 025– 86 037, 2023. DOI: 10 . 1109 / ACCESS . 2023 . 3304274

work page 2023

[2] [2]

Auto- matic pronunciation assessment - a review,

Y . El Kheir, A. Ali, and S. A. Chowdhury, “Auto- matic pronunciation assessment - a review,” in Find- ings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, H. Bouamor, J. Pino, and K. Bali, Eds., Singapore: Association for Computational Linguistics, Dec. 2023, pp. 8304–8324. DOI: 10 . 18653 / v1 / 2023 . findings - emnlp . 557. [Online]. Ava...

work page 2023

[3] [3]

The CMU Kids Corpus LDC97S63,

J. M. Maxine Eskenazi and D. Graff, “The CMU Kids Corpus LDC97S63,” Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, 1997. DOI: 10.35111/b4v0-ff65

work page doi:10.35111/b4v0-ff65 1997

[4] [4]

CSLU: Kids‘ Speech Version 1.1, LDC2007S18,

J.-P. H. Khaldoun Shobaki and R. Cole, “CSLU: Kids‘ Speech Version 1.1, LDC2007S18,” Philadelphia: Lin- guistic Data Consortium, 1997. DOI: 10 . 35111 / q5tn-8096

work page 1997

[5] [5]

MyST Children’s Conversational Speech LDC2021S05,

R. C. Sameer Pradhan and W. Ward, “MyST Children’s Conversational Speech LDC2021S05,” Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, 2021. DOI: 10.35111/ cyxy-p432

work page 2021

[6] [6]

Jasmin-spraakcorpus (version 1.0),

O. v. H. C. Cucchiarini H. V . Hamme and F. Smits, “Jasmin-spraakcorpus (version 1.0),” Available at the Dutch Language Institute: http://hdl.handle.net/10032/tm- a2-j7, 2008

work page 2008

[7] [7]

The slt 2021 children speech recognition challenge: Open datasets, rules and baselines,

F. Y . et al., “The slt 2021 children speech recognition challenge: Open datasets, rules and baselines,” inProc. IEEE Spoken Lang. Tech. Workshop (SLT) , described in Proc. IEEE Spoken Lang. Tech. Workshop (SLT) 2021, Shenzen, China, 2021

work page 2021

[8] [8]

kidsTALC: A Corpus of 3- to 11-year-old German Children’s Con- nected Natural Speech,

L. Rumberg, C. Gebauer, H. Ehlert, et al., “kidsTALC: A Corpus of 3- to 11-year-old German Children’s Con- nected Natural Speech,” in Proc Interspeech , 2022, pp. 5160–5164. DOI: 10.21437/interspeech. 2022-330

doi:10.21437/interspeech 2022