Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 60 references

RhythmTA: A Visual-Aided Interactive System for ESL Rhythm Training via Dubbing Practice

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a visual-aided dubbing system lets ESL learners train English speech rhythm on their own, with a twelve-user study showing improved rhythm perception and promising gains in production.

desk verdict A solid systems paper with a genuinely useful rhythm visualization; the main weakness is that the headline learning claim rests on self-reported perception scores, not objective outcomes. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19026 v1 pith:FCZORJGC submitted 2025-07-25 cs.HC

Chang Chen , Sicheng Song , Shuchang Xu , Zhicheng Li , Huamin Qu , Yanna Lin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords speechrhythmtrainingvisualaidsdubbingpracticeaudioandinterfacesEnglishlanguagelearningstressdetectionvisualizationESLlearners
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

RhythmTA is presented as a way for English-as-a-second-language learners to practice speech rhythm on their own, without a teacher: the system automatically marks which words are stressed and when they occur in any English speech, and renders that information visually on a timeline during dubbing. The design is grounded in interviews with nine spoken-English instructors, who reported that learners struggle to hear rhythmic patterns, cannot easily compare their own speech with a native model, and fall back on first-language rhythm habits. In a within-subjects study with twelve ESL learners, the system was compared against a transcript-only dubbing baseline that resembles existing pronunciation apps. Participants rated RhythmTA significantly higher on perceiving rhythm, identifying deviations, correcting mistakes, and self-reported learning gains, and they made more practice attempts per clip. The authors interpret this as evidence that visual rhythm notation can substitute for instructor feedback for perception, with production improvement as a promising but not yet directly demonstrated outcome.

What carries the argument

The central object is the rhythm notation: a dual-track visual layout with the transcript on top and a horizontal timeline of circles beneath, one circle per word, horizontally positioned by the word's utterance time, filled if the word carries stress and hollow if not. Consecutive stressed words whose intervals form a steady beat are grouped and color-coded by average interval length, and a rhythm waterfall links each target group to the corresponding range of the user's notation in the reflection stage. The notation is produced by a three-module pipeline—VOSK transcription and word alignment, wav2vec 2.0 plus Conformer stress classification (trained on Aix-MARSEC, 85.44% test accuracy), and a sliding-window nPVI segmentation with an empirically set threshold tau=18—and it carries the system's three functions: making rhythm perceptible during listening, guiding repetition in real time, and making deviations visible for self-correction.

What would settle it

Run the pipeline on speech with expert-annotated stress from a different corpus, especially accented ESL speech, and compare labels: if accuracy falls well below the reported 85.44%, the visual guidance is unreliable. Alternatively, a pre/post test in which learners who trained with RhythmTA identify stress or tap beats in unfamiliar audio with no visuals would settle whether the perception gain transfers beyond the interface.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that English speech rhythm can be taught as a visible, inspectable object rather than only an auditory one. RhythmTA's pipeline transcribes speech, classifies each word as stressed or unstressed with a wav2vec 2.0/Conformer model trained on the Aix-MARSEC British-English corpus (85.44% test accuracy), and segments consecutive stressed words into 'rhythm groups' when their intervals stay regular by a normalized Pairwise Variability Index threshold. The interface then shows a rhythm notation: filled versus hollow dots on a timeline, color-coded groups for steady beats, and a parallel 'rhythm waterfall' connecting target groups to the user's utterance. In the evaluation, twelve ESL learners used RhythmTA and a simplified baseline in counterbalanced order; on seven-point scales, RhythmTA significantly outperformed the baseline on perceiving rhythm in target and self speech, reproducing rhythm, identifying deviations, correcting errors, and four self-reported learning-improvement items. The paper frames the result as effective enhancement of rhythm perception and significant potential for improving rhythm production.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the stress detector, trained on about six hours of British English BBC radio speech, labels stressed words correctly in any target clip and in the accented speech of ESL learners; if those labels are wrong, the visual aids and feedback teach the wrong rhythm.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Learners can practice rhythm on any English video, because the pipeline transcribes, detects stress, and segments rhythm groups automatically without hand-prepared materials.
  • The parallel comparison view shows where the user's stress timing deviates from the target, reducing the memory load of switching between two audio recordings.
  • Lenient rule-based feedback on stress accuracy, beat stability, and pace similarity gives a concrete goal for the next dubbing attempt; participants made more attempts per clip with RhythmTA than with the baseline.
  • In the twelve-participant study, RhythmTA significantly outperformed a transcript-only dubbing baseline on perceived rhythm, deviation identification, error correction, and self-reported learning improvement, with no significant increase in time per attempt.
  • Production improvement is reported as promising rather than proven; the study's significant results are perceptual and self-reported.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test the authors did not run is whether perception gains transfer to unaided listening; if rhythm notation acts as a crutch, learners might improve inside the interface yet show no gain when the visuals disappear.
  • Because the stress model is trained only on British broadcast English, accent robustness is the main generalization risk; fine-tuning or evaluation on accented and conversational speech would be the direct extension.
  • The rhythm-group segmentation could double as a material index, so learners could search for clips by tempo, beat regularity, or density of rhythm groups, matching practice content to their level.
  • The same visual-notation idea may apply beyond ESL, for instance to first-language prosody training, accent coaching, or speech therapy, though the paper only studies ESL learners.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents RhythmTA, an interactive dubbing-based system for ESL rhythm training. The system extracts word-level stress from speech using VOSK ASR, a Conformer-based stress classifier trained on Aix-MARSEC, and an nPVI-based rhythm-group segmentation algorithm; it visualizes stress timing through rhythm notes, rhythm groups, and rhythm waterfalls, and generates tolerant corrective feedback. A formative study with nine instructors yields six design requirements, and a within-subjects user study with twelve ESL learners compares RhythmTA with a transcript-only baseline. The study reports significantly higher self-reported ratings for perception, comparison, correction, learning improvement, and learning experience, along with SUS scores around 83, and the authors conclude that RhythmTA effectively enhances rhythm perception and shows significant potential for improving rhythm production.

Significance. The system design is thoughtful and addresses a real gap: independent, feedback-rich rhythm practice without an instructor. The formative study is credible, the three-stage dubbing workflow is well motivated, and the visualizations are a useful contribution to computer-assisted pronunciation training. The within-subjects comparison is appropriately counterbalanced, the baseline reasonably represents existing transcript-only dubbing applications, and the reported stress-detection accuracy of 85.44% on the Aix-MARSEC test set indicates a functional pipeline. If the learning-effectiveness claim were backed by objective outcome measures, this would be a strong contribution. As it stands, the evidence supports a well-received, usable system with promising qualitative results, but not a demonstrated improvement in rhythm perception or production.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2.2, §6.3, Abstract] The claim that RhythmTA 'effectively enhances learners' rhythm perception' rests entirely on self-report items Q16-Q19 (and to a lesser extent Q11-Q15); no objective pre/post measure of rhythm perception or production is reported. The only behavioral metrics in §5.2.1, duration per attempt and number of attempts, do not measure rhythmic ability. Because the comparison is between a visually rich novel system and a transcript-only baseline, demand characteristics are a serious concern: participants can report greater perceived ease and improvement without any actual change in perceptual skill. The limitation statement in §6.3 concedes that the evaluation captured 'initial impressions and short-term learning outcomes,' but it does not acknowledge that the learning-improvement measures are entirely self-reported. The authors should either add an objective outcome measure (e.g., a pre/post stress-identification or rhythm-discrimination test, or expert ratings of recorded production) or substantially soften the abstract and conclusion wording.
  2. [§4.2 M2, §6.3] The stress detector is trained on Aix-MARSEC, which contains British English BBC broadcasts, yet the user study uses American English video clips and non-native ESL speech from Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, Japanese, and German L1 speakers. No validation accuracy is reported for these inputs. Because the visual aids, rhythm groups, and corrective feedback are all generated from predicted stress labels and intervals, systematic misdetection on accented or conversational speech could teach incorrect rhythmic patterns, which would undermine the pedagogical claims. The authors should validate the stress detector on the actual target and user speech materials used in the study, or explicitly scope the system's claims to varieties and conditions where the detector has been shown to work.
  3. [§4.2 M3, §4.4] The rhythm-group segmentation threshold tau=18 and the fuzzy word-match threshold of 0.62 are set empirically, but no sensitivity analysis or selection procedure is reported. The grouping, waterfalls, and corrective feedback that users see depend directly on these thresholds; a small perturbation could change the number of rhythm groups and the feedback content. Because the design requirements DR4-DR6 are implemented through these parameters, the authors should report how the segmentation and feedback output vary over a reasonable range of tau and fuzzy-match thresholds, and should justify the chosen values beyond an empirical hand-wave.
  4. [§5.2.2] The statistical analysis reports a large number of Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (Q1, Q5, Q11-Q23, and individual SUS items) without correction for multiple comparisons and without effect sizes. With N=12 and more than a dozen tests, uncorrected p-values overstate the strength of the evidence. The authors should report exact p-values, effect sizes (e.g., matched rank-biserial correlation), and either apply a multiple-comparison correction or explicitly frame the analysis as exploratory. This matters because these tests are the only quantitative support for the central claims of perceived learning improvement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.2.1] The text states 'We then used a paired t-test for significance analysis,' but the reported statistics are Z values (Z = 1.27, Z = 2.79); the authors should clarify which test was used and report the corresponding statistic consistently.
  2. [§5.3.3] There is a typo: 'local relayer' should be 'local replayer' in the paragraph discussing the local replayer.
  3. [Figure 5 caption and §5.2.2] The caption uses a placeholder '? = 0.06' for Q22; the actual p-value should be reported, and 'flipped' should be defined as 'reverse-coded' for clarity.
  4. [§5.1 Materials] The materials description says V2 and V3 were chosen to maintain similar speech characteristics, but the reported speech rates differ notably (147.4 vs. 126.9 words per minute); the authors should either justify that this difference is acceptable or report a matching procedure that accounts for it.
  5. [§6.3] The sentence 'the current rhythm extraction models is trained' has a subject-verb agreement error and should read 'the current rhythm extraction model is trained.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the effectiveness claim rests on user-study measurements and an externally benchmarked stress-detection model, not on fitted thresholds.

full rationale

RhythmTA's central claims are empirical, not parametric derivations. The stress detection model (Sec. 4.2 M2) is trained on Aix-MARSEC and evaluated on a held-out test set with 85.44% accuracy, so its outputs are externally benchmarked. The nPVI threshold (tau=18) and fuzzy-match threshold (0.62) are engineering parameters that shape feedback, but no user-study outcome is computed from these thresholds; the effectiveness claim comes from within-subjects Likert comparisons (Sec. 5.2.2) and qualitative interviews, which are behavioral measurements rather than algebraic consequences of the fitted values. The closest concern to circularity is that the feedback and the perceived-improvement questions both rely on the system's own stress labels, but the paper does not define 'improvement' in terms of its own label changes; Q18 asks participants whether they feel their speech rhythm improved. That is a self-report validity limitation, acknowledged in Sec. 6.3 as capturing 'initial impressions and short-term learning outcomes,' not a constructional equivalence. Self-citations in related work (e.g., VoiceCoach, SpeechLens) are descriptive and not load-bearing. I find no circular step that reduces a claimed result to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central learning claim rests on operational choices in the pipeline: binary word-level stress from syllable labels, empirical thresholds for rhythm-group segmentation and word alignment, and the assumption that visual rhythm groups are perceptually meaningful. The paper's own limitation section acknowledges the accent limitation and the absence of long-term evaluation.

free parameters (4)
  • nPVI segmentation threshold tau = 18
    Empirically set in Sec 4.2 M3 to decide when stress intervals form a rhythm group; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Fuzzy word-match threshold = 0.62
    Empirically determined via difflib in Sec 4.4 to establish word alignment between target and user transcripts; affects deviation computation.
  • Color pace thresholds = 1.0 s (yellow), 0.1 s (purple)
    Hand-chosen extremes in Sec 4.3 to map average stress interval to color; described as rarely occurring empirically.
  • Feedback smoothing rules = rule-based (e.g., if D_stress>1 then D_beat=min(...); reduce smallest deviation by 1)
    Heuristic filtering in Sec 4.4 to make corrective feedback lenient; arbitrary choices affect feedback content.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption English speech rhythm is adequately represented by the timing of stressed syllables and binary word-level stress labels.
    Sec 4.2 opens with this; the paper acknowledges the isochrony debate (Sec 2.1) but relies on stress timing as the operational definition of rhythm.
  • domain assumption Word-level stress labels can be derived from syllable-level stress annotations by checking whether any syllable in a word is stressed.
    Sec 4.2 M2; this mapping may lose within-word stress distinctions and assumes one primary stress per word.
  • domain assumption wav2vec 2.0 features are sensitive to stress and transfer to word-level audio segments from arbitrary speakers.
    Sec 4.2 M2; relies on [7] and the pre-trained model without fine-tuning on ESL or conversational data.
  • ad hoc to paper The baseline system (transcript only) fairly represents current dubbing applications' feedback.
    Sec 5.1; the baseline is a stripped-down RhythmTA, not a commercial app, so the comparison may overstate the advantage of the visual components.
invented entities (1)
  • Rhythm group
    purpose: A segment of at least three consecutive stressed words with similar stress intervals, used as the unit for visualization and feedback.
    Defined in Sec 4.2 M3 and visualized in Sec 4.3; its validity as a perceptually meaningful unit is not independently validated, and one participant (P8) reported confusion about groupings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RhythmTA: A Visual-Aided Interactive System for ESL Rhythm Training via Dubbing Practice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FCZORJGC

@misc{pith2026250719026,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RhythmTA: A Visual-Aided Interactive System for ESL Rhythm Training via Dubbing Practice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FCZORJGC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19026}
}
read the original abstract

English speech rhythm, the temporal patterns of stressed syllables, is essential for English as a second language (ESL) learners to produce natural-sounding and comprehensible speech. Rhythm training is generally based on imitation of native speech. However, it relies heavily on external instructor feedback, preventing ESL learners from independent practice. To address this gap, we present RhythmTA, an interactive system for ESL learners to practice speech rhythm independently via dubbing, an imitation-based approach. The system automatically extracts rhythm from any English speech and introduces novel visual designs to support three stages of dubbing practice: (1) Synchronized listening with visual aids to enhance perception, (2) Guided repeating by visual cues for self-adjustment, and (3) Comparative reflection from a parallel view for self-monitoring. Our design is informed by a formative study with nine spoken English instructors, which identified current practices and challenges. A user study with twelve ESL learners demonstrates that RhythmTA effectively enhances learners' rhythm perception and shows significant potential for improving rhythm production.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19026 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. RhythmTA helps ESL learners practice English speech rhythm by providing visual aids across three stages—visual-aided listening, visual-guided repeating, and comparative reflection. These designs address key challenges of audio-only rhythm learning, including difficulty in perceiving rhythm (C1), comparing one’s own speech to native speech (C2), and unconsciously reverting to first language (L1) rhythmic patterns (C3… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The RhythmTA interface includes three main components: (a) the video player for viewing the original content, (b) the dubbing clips panel displaying text segments for practice, and (c) the dubbing area integrating visual and interactive feedback across three learning stages: listening, repeating, and reflection. Within the dubbing area, c0 suggests the current learning stage, where “Practice” includes listening and … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The RhythmTA pipeline consists of three main modules: (1) Speech Recognition and Pre-processing, which transcribes speech into transcript with word-level timestamps and then segments audio into individual word clips; (2) Stress Detection, which processes word audio segments to predict stress labels reflecting contextual and prosodic shifts in natural speech; and (3) Rhythm Group Segmentation, which detects temporal … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This figure illustrates how RhythmTA visualizes speech rhythm through three key components: (a) rhythm note, which shows the timing and stress of each word along a timeline; (b) rhythm group, which groups two or more consecutive stressed words with similar intervals an…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: This figure displays user ratings for RhythmTA and the baseline across learning facilitation (Q11-Q15), learning improvement (Q16-Q19), and learning experience (Q20-Q23), measured on a 7-point Likert scale. Significant difference are marked with * (𝑝 < 0.05) and ** (𝑝 …

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    David Abercrombie. 2019. Elements of General Phonetics . Edinburgh University Press

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    George D Allen. 1972. The Location of Rhythmic Stress Beats in English: An Experimental Study I. Language and speech 15, 1 (1972), 72–100

    work page 1972

  3. [3]

    Cyril Auran, Caroline Bouzon, and Daniel Hirst. 2004. The Aix-MARSEC Project: An Evolutive Database of Spoken British English. InProceedings of Speech Prosody, Vol. 3. 561–564

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Alexei Baevski, Yuhao Zhou, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Michael Auli. 2020. wav2vec 2.0: A Framework for Self-Supervised Learning of Speech Representa- tions. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 12449–12460

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Aaron Bangor, Philip T Kortum, and James T Miller. 2008. An Empirical Evaluation of the System Usability Scale. Intl. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 24, 6 (2008), 574–594

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    James" Bo" Begole, John C Tang, and Rosco Hill. 2003. Rhythm Modeling, Visual- izations and Applications. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 11–20

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Martijn Bentum, Louis ten Bosch, and Tom Lentz. 2024. The Processing of Stress in End-to-End Automatic Speech Recognition Models. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2024. 2350–2354

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Nia Cason, Corine Astésano, and Daniele Schön. 2015. Bridging music and speech rhythm: Rhythmic priming and audio–motor training affect speech perception. Acta psychologica 155 (2015), 43–50

    work page 2015

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Akash Chaudhary, Manshul Belani, Naman Maheshwari, and Aman Parnami

  2. [10]

    Chi-Fen Chen et al. 1996. A New Perspective on Teaching English Pronunciation: Rhythm. (1996)

    1996

  3. [11]

    Yunfei Chu, Jin Xu, Qian Yang, Haojie Wei, Xipin Wei, Zhifang Guo, Yichong Leng, Yuanjun Lv, Jinzheng He, Junyang Lin, et al. 2024. Qwen2-audio technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10759 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Couper-Kuhlen

    E. Couper-Kuhlen. 1986. An Introduction to English Prosody . Edward Arnold. https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=fKyMQgAACAAJ

    1986

  5. [13]

    Rebecca M Dauer. 1983. Stress-Timing and Syllable-Timing Reanalyzed. Journal of phonetics 11, 1 (1983), 51–62

    1983

  6. [14]

    Giulio Degano, Peter W Donhauser, Laura Gwilliams, Paola Merlo, and Narly Golestani. 2024. Speech Prosody Enhances the Neural Processing of Syntax. Communications Biology 7, 1 (2024), 748

    2024

  7. [15]

    J Fokes, ZS Bond, and M Steinberg. 1984. Patterns of English Word Stress by Native and Non-Native Speakers. InProceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. 682–686

    1984

  8. [16]

    Shinya Fujii and Catherine Y Wan. 2014. The Role of Rhythm in Speech and Language Rehabilitation: The SEP Hypothesis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8 (2014), 777

    2014

  9. [17]

    Esther Grabe, Ee Ling Low, et al . 2002. Durational Variability in Speech and the Rhythm Class Hypothesis. Papers in laboratory phonology 7, 515-546 (2002), 1–16

    2002

  10. [18]

    Anmol Gulati, James Qin, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Niki Parmar, Yu Zhang, Jiahui Yu, Wei Han, Shibo Wang, Zhengdong Zhang, Yonghui Wu, et al. 2020. Conformer: Convolution-Augmented Transformer for Speech Recognition. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2020. 5036–5040

    2020

  11. [19]

    Levis, Kate Challis, and Maksim Prikazchikov

    Agata Guskaroska, Zoe Zawadzki, John M. Levis, Kate Challis, and Maksim Prikazchikov. 2024. Teaching Pronunciation with Confidence: A Resource for ESL/EFL Teachers and Learners. Iowa State University Digital Press

    2024

  12. [20]

    Yo Hamada. 2012. An Effective Way to Improve Listening Skills Through Shad- owing. The Language Teacher, 36 (1), 3–10

    2012

  13. [21]

    Soon Hau Chua, Haimo Zhang, Muhammad Hammad, Shengdong Zhao, Sahil Goyal, and Karan Singh. 2015. ColorBless: Augmenting Visual Information for Colorblind People with Binocular Luster Effect. ACM Transactions on Computer- Human Interaction (TOCHI) 21, 6 (2015), 1–20

    2015

  14. [22]

    Simon Holland, Anders Bouwer, and Oliver Hödl. 2018. Haptics for the devel- opment of fundamental rhythm skills, including multi-limb coordination. In Musical Haptics. Springer International Publishing Cham, 215–237

    2018

  15. [23]

    Listen and Repeat

    Rodney H Jones. 1997. Beyond “Listen and Repeat”: Pronunciation Teaching Materials and Theories of Second Language Acquisition. System 25, 1 (1997), 103–112

    1997

  16. [24]

    Gary Geunbae Lee, Ho-Young Lee, Jieun Song, Byeongchang Kim, Sechun Kang, Jinsik Lee, and Hyosung Hwang. 2017. Automatic Sentence Stress Feedback for Non-Native English Learners. Computer Speech & Language 41 (2017), 29–42

    2017

  17. [25]

    Yi-Chi Liao, Yen-Chiu Chen, Liwei Chan, and Bing-Yu Chen. 2017. Dwell+ Multi- level Mode Selection Using Vibrotactile Cues. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Acm Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 5–16

    2017

  18. [26]

    Binghuai Lin, Liyuan Wang, Hongwei Ding, and Xiaoli Feng. 2021. Improving L2 English Rhythm Evaluation with Automatic Sentence Stress Detection. In 2021 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT) . 713–719

    2021

  19. [27]

    Yang Liu and Godfried T Toussaint. 2012. Mathematical Notation, Representation, and Visualization of Musical Rhythm: A Comparative Perspective. International Journal of Machine Learning and Computing 2, 3 (2012), 261

    2012

  20. [28]

    Dean Luo, Ruxin Luo, and Lixin Wang. 2016. Naturalness Judgement of L2 English Through Dubbing Practice. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2016 . 200–203

    2016

  21. [29]

    Justyna Maculewicz, Cumhur Erkut, and Stefania Serafin. 2016. An investigation on the impact of auditory and haptic feedback on rhythmic walking interactions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 85 (2016), 40–46

    2016

  22. [30]

    Jhansi Mallela, Sai Harshitha Aluru, and Chiranjeevi Yarra. 2024. A Comparative Analysis of Sequential Models That Integrate Syllable Dependency for Automatic Syllable Stress Detection. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2024 . 3829–3833

    2024

  23. [31]

    Jhansi Mallela, Prasanth Sai Boyina, and Chiranjeevi Yarra. 2023. A Comparison of Learned Representations with Jointly Optimized VAE and DNN for Syllable Stress Detection. In International Conference on Speech and Computer . 322–334

    2023

  24. [32]

    Tetsuo Nishihara and Adrian Leis. 2014. Rhythm in English: Implications for Teaching. Toohoku Eigo Kyooiku Gakkai Kiyoo 34 (2014), 65–76

    2014

  25. [33]

    Francis Nolan and Hae-Sung Jeon. 2014. Speech Rhythm: A Metaphor? Philo- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369, 1658 (2014), 20130396

    2014

  26. [34]

    Alp Öktem, Mireia Farrús, and Leo Wanner. 2017. Prosograph: A Tool for Prosody Visualisation of Large Speech Corpora. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2017 . 809– 810

    2017

  27. [35]

    Rupal Patel and William Furr. 2011. ReadN’Karaoke: Visualizing Prosody in Children’s Books for Expressive Oral Reading. In Proceedings of the 2011 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 3203–3206

    2011

  28. [36]

    Jonathan E Peelle and Matthew H Davis. 2012. Neural Oscillations Carry Speech Rhythm Through to Comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 3 (2012), 320

    2012

  29. [37]

    Kenneth L Pike. 1945. The Intonation of American English. (1945)

    1945

  30. [38]

    qupeiyin.cn. 2024. Lingodub. https://www.qupeiyin.com/index.html Accessed: 2025-04-10

    2024

  31. [39]

    Mohi Reza and Dongwook Yoon. 2021. Designing CAST: A Computer-Assisted Shadowing Trainer for Self-Regulated Foreign Language Listening Practice. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–13

    2021

  32. [40]

    Peter Roach. 1982. On the Distinction Between ‘Stress-Timed’ and ‘Syllable- Timed’ Languages. Linguistic controversies 73 (1982), 79

    1982

  33. [41]

    Maria Paula Roncaglia-Denissen, Maren Schmidt-Kassow, and Sonja A Kotz. 2013. Speech Rhythm Facilitates Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution: ERP Evidence. PLOS ONE 8, 2 (2013), e56000

    2013

  34. [42]

    Tara Rosenberger and Ronald L MacNeil. 1999. Prosodic Font: Translating Speech into Graphics. In Proceedings of the 1999 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 252–253

    1999

  35. [43]

    Yong Ruan, Xiangdong Wang, Hong Liu, Zhigang Ou, Yun Gao, Jianfeng Cheng, and Yueliang Qian. 2019. An End-to-End Approach for Lexical Stress Detection Based on Transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.04862 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Mysore, and Maneesh Agrawala

    Steve Rubin, Floraine Berthouzoz, Gautham J. Mysore, and Maneesh Agrawala

  37. [45]

    Jeff Sauro and James R Lewis. 2016. Quantifying thFe User Experience: Practical Statistics for User Research . Morgan Kaufmann

    2016

  38. [46]

    Maria-Josep Solé Sabater. 1991. Stress and Rhythm in English. Revista alicantina de estudios ingleses, No. 04 (Nov. 1991); pp. 145-162 (1991)

    1991

  39. [47]

    Joseph Tepperman, Theban Stanley, Kadri Hacioglu, and Bryan Pellom. 2010. Testing Suprasegmental English Through Parroting. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody. 11–14

    2010

  40. [48]

    Shrikant Venkataramani, Paris Smaragdis, and Gautham Mysore. 2017. AutoDub: Automatic Redubbing for Voiceover Editing. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 533–538

    2017

  41. [49]

    Xingbo Wang, Haipeng Zeng, Yong Wang, Aoyu Wu, Zhida Sun, Xiaojuan Ma, and Huamin Qu. 2020. VoiceCoach: Interactive Evidence-Based Training for Voice Modulation Skills in Public Speaking. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference RhythmTA: A Visual-Aided Interactive System for...

    2020

  42. [50]

    Weizhen Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. 2021. Mofunshow. https://www. mofunenglish.com/ Accessed: 2025-04-10

    2021

  43. [51]

    Frank Wilcoxon, SK Katti, Roberta A Wilcox, et al . 1963. Critical Values and Probability Levels for the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test and the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. Vol. 1. American Cyanamid Pearl River, NY

    1963

  44. [52]

    Tian Xia, Xianfeng Rui, Chien-Lin Huang, Iek Heng Chu, Shaojun Wang, and Mei Han. 2019. An Attention-Based Deep Neural Network for Automatic Lexi- cal Stress Detection. In 2019 IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing (GlobalSIP). 1–5

    2019

  45. [53]

    Liwenhan Xie, James O’Donnell, Benjamin Bach, and Jean-Daniel Fekete. 2020. In- teractive time-series of measures for exploring dynamic networks. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces . 1–9

    2020

  46. [54]

    Dongwook Yoon, Nicholas Chen, François Guimbretière, and Abigail Sellen

  47. [55]

    Linping Yuan, Yuanzhe Chen, Siwei Fu, Aoyu Wu, and Huamin Qu. 2019. Speech- Lens: A Visual Analytics Approach for Exploring Speech Strategies with Textural and Acoustic Features. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Big Data and Smart Computing (BigComp). 1–8

    2019

  48. [56]

    Yuguan Information Technology (Shanghai) LLC. 2022. Liulishuo. https://www. liulishuo.com/ Accessed: 2025-04-10

    2022

  49. [57]

    Xinlei Zhang, Takashi Miyaki, and Jun Rekimoto. 2020. WithYou: Automated Adaptive Speech Tutoring with Context-Dependent Speech Recognition. In Pro- ceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–12

    2020

  50. [2014]

    In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology

    RichReview: Blending Ink, Speech, and Gesture to Support Collaborative Document Review. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 481–490

  51. [2015]

    In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology

    Capture-Time Feedback for Recording Scripted Narration. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 191–199. doi:10. 1145/2807442.2807464

  52. [2021]

    In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction

    Verbose: Designing a Context-Based Educational System for Improving Communicative Expressions. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction . 1–13

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.