## 3 Results
### User Interaction with the CAPT Tool
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Theory**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Exposure**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Discrimination**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Pronunciation**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Mixed**} \\ \hline  & \(\overline{\mu}\) & \(m\) & \(M\) & \(\overline{\mu}\) & \(m\) & \(M\) & \(\overline{\mu}\) & \(m\) & \(M\) & \(\overline{\mu}\) & \(m\) & \(M\) & \(\overline{\mu}\) & \(m\) & \(M\) \\ \hline Time (min) & 14.80 & 8.7 & 20.8 & 19.7 & 12.8 & 21.9 & 7.1 & 4.1 & 13.8 & 43.6 & 22.4 & 72.9 & 17.0 & 7.6 & 30.5 \\ \#Tries & 7.8 & 6 & 10 & 10.6 & 7 & 16 & 8.5 & 7 & 15 & 10.1 & 7 & 14 & 6.7 & 3 & 10 \\ \#Mand.List. & - & - & - & 287.8 & 210 & 390 & 91.7 & 70 & 134 & - & - & - & 20.2 & 9 & 30 \\ \#Req.List. & - & - & - & 99.3 & 53 & 157 & 33.0 & 0 & 153 & 54.9 & 0 & 127 & 25.6 & 6 & 60 \\ \#Discriminations & - & - & - & - & - & - & 91.7 & 70 & 134 & - & - & - & 20.2 & 9 & 30 \\ \#Productions & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 208.8 & 116 & 356 & 82.9 & 38 & 181 \\ \#Recordings & - & - & - & 62.4 & 42 & 81 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: User’s training activities with the CAPT system. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Discrimination Tasks**} \\ \hline
**\#_Li_** & **[f]** & **[fr]** & **[I]** & **[r]** & **[r]** & **[s]** & **[o]** & **[f]** & **[fu]** & **[xu]** & **TPR (\%)** \\ \hline
65 & [f] & **123** & 64 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 65.8\% \\
52 & [fr] & 69 & **115** & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 62.5\% \\
139 & [I] & - & - & **239** & 56 & 19 & - & - & - & - & - & 76.1\% \\
115 & [r] & - & - & 71 & **217** & 16 & - & - & - & - & - & 71.4\% \\
51 & [rr] & - & - & 15 & 21 & **215** & - & - & - & - & - & 85.7\% \\
45 & [s] & - & - & - & - & - & 95 & 32 & - & - & - & 74.8\% \\
45 & [0] & - & - & - & - & - & 15 & **214** & 11 & - & - & 89.2\% \\
16 & [f] & - & - & - & - & - & - & 4 & **104** & - & - & 96.3\% \\
89 & [fu] & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & **115** & 34 & 77.2\% \\
103 & [xu] & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 39 & **111** & 74.0\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Confusion matrix of discrimination tasks (diagonal: right discrimination tasks). Table 3 shows the results related to production events per word utterance. #_Lis_ is the number of requested listings of the corresponding _sound_ row at (_first_!_last_) attempt. A positive improvement from first to last attempt was observed (_TPR_ column), with the highest ones being the [f] (33.2%) and [fr] (21.1%) sounds. In particular, these two sounds constituted the most confused pair in first-attempt production tasks (73 and 79, 152 times), where the least confused one was [l]-[rr] (37 and 22, 59 times). The sounds with the lowest production _TPR_ rate were [f] and [s] (both \(<\) 47%), and those with the highest production _TPR_ rates were [r] and [rr] (both \(>\) 73%). On the other hand, the most confused pair in last-attempt production tasks was [fu]-[xu] (91 and 106, 197 times), reaching the lowest production _TPR_ rates (56.6% and 60.6%, respectively). Moreover, the number of requested listings was the highest in both cases (240 and 186, respectively). The least confused pair was [l]-[rr] (9 and 14, 23 times), reaching _TPR_ rate values higher than 85%.