The evidence

What the design rests on, and what it does not claim

Articarry is built on a small, plain idea from the speech-language literature: practice between sessions matters, and how often it happens matters. Below are the peer-reviewed sources behind that idea, and a clear statement of where the evidence stops and Articarry's claims must stop with it.

The premise

A clinician sees a child briefly and infrequently. The repetition that carries a target sound forward happens in the days between: at home, with a parent. The literature treats home practice and its frequency as a real part of articulation intervention. Articarry does one job: it makes that between-session practice visible, so a clinician is not working from a parent's hazy recollection.

Three kinds of fact, and the one we refuse to plot

Articarry is careful about where every number on the screen comes from. There are three kinds, and it treats each one differently. This is the approach, and it is the thing a competitor built around auto-scoring cannot copy without abandoning its own pitch.

What happened

The behavioral facts.

How many days a child practiced, how many recordings they made, which words they attempted. Articarry states these plainly: they are counts of what was done, and nothing more is read into them.

What a machine guessed

The fallible signal: shown as a cue, never plotted over time.

When a recording is scored, the engine offers a plainly-labeled guess at what a word sounded like. Articarry shows it as a place to point an ear: never as a finding, and never drawn as a line over time. A trend built from a machine's guesses, on an instrument no one validated on that child, would be a clinical claim wearing a fact's clothes. We will not draw it. That refusal is the point.

What the clinician judged

The clinician's own facts: hers to keep over time.

The plan decisions she makes and the tallies she takes by her own ear. These are hers, and these Articarry will keep over time (in the plan-history timeline and the progress letter), because the judgment in them is a licensed human's, not a machine's.

The short version: Articarry shows you what happened, and what you judged. It never shows you a machine's verdict on your patient, dressed up as a trend.

Peer-reviewed sources

These are named, real studies of children's speech and of speech-sound intervention. None of them is a study of Articarry. They establish why between-session practice and its consistency matter: the gap Articarry was built to make visible.

Crowe & McLeod (2020): consonant acquisition norms

Children's English Consonant Acquisition in the United States: A Review. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 29(4).

What it supports: the field has age ranges for when children come to produce each consonant. Articarry's practice library is organized sound-by-sound because clinicians target sounds that way. Articarry does not apply these norms to a child or report against them.
Sugden, Baker, Munro & Williams (2018): parents in intervention

Involvement of parents in intervention for childhood speech sound disorders: A systematic review. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders.

What it supports: parents are a recognized part of speech-sound intervention, and home practice is a common component of it. Articarry is built to make a parent's part easier to do and easier for the clinician to see.
Williams (2012): intensity of practice

Intensity in phonological intervention: Is there a prescribed amount? International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology.

What it supports: how much and how often practice happens is a real clinical variable. That is exactly what Articarry surfaces (a count of how often practice happened), and exactly where it stops.
Maas et al. (2008): principles of motor learning

Principles of Motor Learning in Treatment of Motor Speech Disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17(3).

What it supports: the amount and distribution of practice are part of how motor speech skills are learned. Distributed, between-session repetition is the kind of practice Articarry organizes.

These citations are starting points for a clinician's own reading, not a claim of endorsement. The wording of each study is the authors'; the scoping note under each is ours.

These are foundational papers a clinician would likely already know. We did not unearth them; we selected them to explain Articarry's premise. None of them was designed with a product like Articarry in mind. They name the premise, not the product.

What Articarry claims, and what it does not

Articarry does claim

It records the practice a child does and stores the audio.
It shows a clinician how often practice happened.
It lets a clinician hear every recording a child made.
It offers a fallible, plainly-labeled guess at what a word sounded like.
Its picture reward is tied to having practiced.

Articarry does not claim

That a child's speech will change because of it.
To be speech-language therapy, or a substitute for it.
To stand in for a clinician's listening or judgment.
That its marks or guesses are clinical findings.
To be a test of a child's speech.

The honest summary: the evidence above is about speech-sound intervention and child speech development. It is not evidence about Articarry. These are foundational papers in the field, chosen to explain Articarry's premise, not a body of research built around a tool like it. Articarry's job is narrow and it is the only job it claims: to make between-session practice visible to the clinician who is already doing the intervention.

See it before your patients do.

Articarry opens to clinicians in a private beta. Leave your email and we'll write when there's a real seat to offer. Not before.