Stuttering Treatment Approaches from the Past Two Decades: Comprehensive Survey and Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This comprehensive survey and review presents stuttering treatment approaches that have been reported in the past 20 years in order to highlight the different characteristics in each intervention. The comprehensive survey presented in this article was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines to extract articles on stuttering interventions, published between 01/01/2000 and 01/08/2020. 11 formal programs, 9 fluency induction techniques and 7 adjunct therapy approaches were identified through the comprehensive survey and summarized. The most common results were the Lidcombe program and altered auditory feedback techniques. The comprehensive survey and review presented in this article strives to provide knowledge that can help researchers in other areas, such as Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), acquire a preliminary understanding of stuttering interventions and further the field of stuttering interventions with the introduction of technological advancements.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it