Universal Access in the Information Society

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 169–189 | Cite as

Speech pronunciation practice system for speech-impaired children: a systematic review of impacts and functionality

  • Ali DarejehEmail author
  • Siti Salwah Salim
  • Adeleh Asemi
Review Paper


There are many systems in the field of speech therapy, and each offers different features. Identifying the effects of these systems on speech learning of children and proper features for selection of an effective speech pronunciation practice (SPP) system for children is an important issue for speech therapists. Therefore, analysing the impacts and functionality of the current SPP systems can help software developers find the essential features for designing an effective SPP system and also assist the therapists to select an appropriate system for children. To address the above issues, a literature review was conducted to find the desired features and characteristics for designing an effective SPP system for children and identify the shortcomings of the current speech pronunciation practice systems. To conduct this systematic review, the researchers followed a defined procedure designed by Kitchenham (Procedures for performing systematic reviews, Keele University, Keele, 2004). From 229 initial papers found in five research databases, 11 relevant papers were extracted based on the inclusion criteria. The SPP systems were summarised in terms of these factors: (a) purpose(s) and experimental type; (b) experimental results; (c) main features; (d) different types of each feature; (e) platform; (f) user interface characteristics; and (g) practising method. The results indicated that: (a) experimental results of all systems were positive, and patients and therapists were satisfied with SPP systems; (b) user profiles, feedback, reports, user interface and practising method are five elements of SPP systems which can have direct effect on system effectiveness; and (c) appropriate reporting systems and user interfaces are ignored in most SPP systems. We conclude that an appropriate SPP system can increase children’s enthusiasm to participate in therapy sessions and improves their concentration and performance during the sessions. Furthermore, we present the most-used type of each main element of SPP systems and indicate the potential positive features based on the shortcomings of the current systems.


Speech pronunciation practice system Children speech problem SPP features 



This research is supported by the University of Malaya High Impact Research Grant UM.C/HIR/MOHE/FCSIT/05 from the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia.


  1. 1.
    Rodríguez, W.R., Saz, O., Lleida, E.: A prelingual tool for the education of altered voices. Speech Commun. 54(5), 583–600 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shifang, T., Xiuhong, L., Hao, D. Study on Chinese college students’ beliefs and attitude towards autonomous language learning in computer-assisted language learning environment. In: 2011 International Conference on Mechatronic Science, Electric Engineering and Computer (MEC), pp. 2005–2009 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mokhtari, H.: Iranian EFL learners’ attitude towards CALL. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 70, 1630–1635 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marzban, A.: Improvement of reading comprehension through computer-assisted language learning in Iranian intermediate EFL students. Procedia Comput. Sci. 3, 3–10 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barani, G.: The relationship between computer assisted language learning (CALL) and listening skill of Iranian EFL learners. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 15, 4059–4063 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nachoua, H.: Computer-assisted language learning for improving students’ listening skill. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 69(Iceepsy), 1150–1159 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mustafa, Hema Rosheny, Sain, Noridah, Razak, Noor Zainab Abdul: Using internet for learning vocabulary among second language learners in a suburban school. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 66, 425–431 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Al-Mansour, N.S., Al-Shorman, R.A.: The effect of computer-assisted instruction on Saudi University students’ learning of English. J. King Saud Univ. Lang. Transl. 24(1), 51–56 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sufeng, Y. Computer-assisted language learning in higher education. In: 2011 IEEE International Symposium on IT in Medicine and Education pp. 137–141 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kitchenham, B.: Procedures for performing systematic reviews, vol. 33, pp. 1–26. Keele University, Keele (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Darejeh, A., Singh, D.: An investigation on ribbon interface design guidelines for people with less computer literacy. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 36(5), 808–820 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen, Y.-J. et al. An articulation training system with intelligent interface and multimode feedbacks to articulation disorders. In: 2009 International Conference on Asian Language Processing, pp. 3–6 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Danubianu, M., Pentiuc, S.G., Schipor, O.A., Nestor, M., Ungureanu, I. Distributed intelligent system for personalized therapy of speech disorders. In: The Third International Multi-Conference on Computing in the Global Information Technology (ICCGI 2008), pp. 166–170 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Toki, E.I., Pange, J.: E-learning activities for articulation in speech language therapy and learning for preschool children. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2(2), 4274–4278 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bälter, O., Engwall, O., Öster, A.-M., Sidenbladh-Kjellström, H. Wizard-of-Oz test of ARTUR—a computer-based speech training system with articulation correction. In: International ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies (Assets), pp. 36–43 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kirschning, I., Toledo, M.T., Valadez, L.E., Canizales, D. Vowel & diphthong tutors for language therapy. In: ENC 2005. Sixth Mexican International Conference on Computer Science, pp. 26–30. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Russell, M., Series, R.W., Wallace, J.L., Brown, C., Skilling, A.: The STAR system: an interactive pronunciation tutor for young children. Comput. Speech Lang. 14(2), 161–175 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rahman, M.M., Ferdous, S.M., Ahmed, S.I. Increasing intelligibility in the speech of the autistic children by an interactive computer game. In: 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia, pp. 383–87 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vaquero, C., Saz, O., Lleida, E., Marcos, J., Canalís, C., De Educación, C.P. VOCALIZA: an application for computer-aided speech therapy in Spanish language. IV Jornadas en Tecnología del Habla, pp. 321–326 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rodríguez, W.R., Saz, O., Lleida, E., Vaquero, C., Escartín, A. COMUNICA-tools for speech and language therapy. In: WOCCI, p. 12 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vicsi, K., Roach, P., Öster, A., Kacic, Z., Barczikay, P., Tantos, A., et al.: A multimedia, multilingual teaching and training system for children with speech disorders. Int. J. Speech Technol. 3(3), 289–300 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cagatay, M., Ege, P., Tokdemir, G., Cagiltay, N.E. A serious game for speech disorder children therapy. In: 2012 7th International Symposium on Health Informatics and Bioinformatics (HIBIT), pp. 18–23. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kientz, J., Boring, S., Abowd, G., Hayes, G. Abaris: evaluating automated capture applied to structured autism interventions. In: UbiComp 2005: Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 903–903 (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Darejeh, A., Salim, S.S.: Gamification solutions to enhance software user engagement a systematic review. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 32(8), 613–642 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Aghlara, L., Tamjid, N.H.: The effect of digital games on Iranian children’s vocabulary retention in foreign language acquisition. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 29, 552–560 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Turgut, Y., İrgin, P.: Young learners’ language learning via computer games. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 1(1), 760–764 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chang, M., Kuo, R., Kinshuk, Chen, G.-D., Hirose, M. Learning by playing. Game-based education system design and development. In: 4th International Conference on E-learning, Edutainment 2009, Banff, Canada (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pivec, M.: Guidelines for Game-Based Learning. Pabst Science Publishers, Lengerich (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ronimus, M., Kujala, J., Tolvanen, A., Lyytinen, H.: Children’s engagement during digital game-based learning of reading: the effects of time, rewards, and challenge. Comput. Educ. 71, 237–246 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rahimi, M., Hosseini, S.Fatemeh K.: The impact of computer-based activities on Iranian high-school students’ attitudes towards computer-assisted language learning. Procedia Comput. Sci. 3, 183–190 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lazakidou, A.A. (ed.): Web-Based Applications in Healthcare and Biomedicine, vol. 7. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Martin, F., Ertzberger, J.: Here and now mobile learning: an experimental study on the use of mobile technology. Comput. Educ. 68, 76–85 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Agca, R.K., Özdemir, S.: Foreign language vocabulary learning with mobile technologies. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 83, 781–785 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cavus, N., Ibrahim, D. A mobile tool for learning English words. In: Paper Presented at the 5th International Conference on Electrical and Computer Systems, Leftke, Cyprus (2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kukulska-Hulme, A., Shield, L.: An overview of mobile assisted language. Learning: from content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. Re-CALL 20(3), 249–252 (2008)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nihalani, P.K., Mayrath, M.C. Statistics I. Findings from using an iPhone app in a higher education course. White Paper (2010)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pinner, R.S. Teachers’ attitudes to and motivations for using CALL in and around the language classroom. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 34, 188–192 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Software Engineering, Faculty of Computer Science and Information TechnologyUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations