input: Text: PhD A: OK, we're on. Professor C: OK, what are we talking about today? PhD B: I don't know. Do you have news from the conference talk? Uh, that was programmed for yesterday <unk>disfmarker<unk> I guess. Professor C: Uh <unk>disfmarker<unk> PhD D: Yesterday Professor C: Uh <unk>disfmarker<unk> PhD D: Yesterday morning on video conference. Professor C: Uh, PhD B: Well Professor C: oh, I'm sorry. Grad E: Oh. Conference call. Professor C: I know <unk>disfmarker<unk> now I know what you're talking about. No, nobody's told me anything. PhD B: Alright. PhD A: Oh, this was the, uh, talk where they were supposed to try to decide <unk>disfmarker<unk> PhD B: To <unk>disfmarker<unk> to decide what to do, PhD A: Ah, right. PhD B: yeah. PhD D: Yeah. Professor C: Yeah. No, that would have been a good thing to find out before this meeting, that's. No, I have no <unk>disfmarker<unk> I have no idea. Um, Uh, so I mean, let's <unk>disfmarker<unk> let's assume for right now that we're just kind of plugging on ahead, PhD B: Yeah. Professor C: because even if they tell us that, uh, the rules are different, uh, we're still interested in doing what we're doing. So what are you doing? PhD B: Mm - hmm. Uh, well, we've <unk>disfmarker<unk> a little bit worked on trying to see, uh, what were the bugs and the problem with the latencies. PhD D: To improve <unk>dis
  Question: What did the team think about the length of silence before declaring an utterance?
  Answer:
output: The team thought that around 250 milliseconds was a good heuristic to detect the end of the utterance. The utterance recognition also had some processing time attached, increasing the delay.