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.

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.

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-labelled 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.