Opportunities for social robots in the stuttering clinic: A review and proposed scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The inclusion of technologies such as telepractice, and virtual reality in the field of communication disorders has transformed the approach to providing healthcare. This research article proposes the employment of similar advanced technology – social robots, by providing a context and scenarios for potential implementation of social robots as supplements to stuttering intervention. The use of social robots has shown potential benefits for all the age group in the field of healthcare. However, such robots have not yet been leveraged to aid people with stuttering. We offer eight scenarios involving social robots that can be adapted for stuttering intervention with children and adults. The scenarios in this article were designed by human–robot interaction (HRI) and stuttering researchers and revised according to feedback from speech-language pathologists (SLPs). The scenarios specify extensive details that are amenable to clinical research. A general overview of stuttering, technologies used in stuttering therapy, and social robots in health care is provided as context for treatment scenarios supported by social robots. We propose that existing stuttering interventions can be enhanced by placing state-of-the-art social robots as tools in the hands of practitioners, caregivers, and clinical scientists.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".