Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35260572›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Exploring racial and gender disparities in voice biometrics.

Xingyu Chen, Zhengxiong Li, Srirangaraj Setlur, Wenyao Xu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Xingyu Chen *CSE, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, 80204, USA.
Zhengxiong Li *CSE, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, 80204, USA.
Srirangaraj SetlurCSE, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, 14228, USA.
Wenyao XuCSE, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, 14228, USA. wenyaoxu@buffalo.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systemic inequity in biometrics systems based on racial and gender disparities has received a lot of attention recently. These disparities have been explored in existing biometrics systems such as facial biometrics (identifying individuals based on facial attributes). However, such ethical issues remain largely unexplored in voice biometric systems that are very popular and extensively used globally. Using a corpus of non-speech voice records featuring a diverse group of 300 speakers by race (75 each from White, Black, Asian, and Latinx subgroups) and gender (150 each from female and male subgroups), we explore and reveal that racial subgroup has a similar voice characteristic and gender subgroup has a significant different voice characteristic. Moreover, non-negligible racial and gender disparities exist in speaker identification accuracy by analyzing the performance of one commercial product and five research products. The average accuracy for Latinxs can be 12% lower than Whites (p < 0.05, 95% CI 1.58%, 14.15%) and can be significantly higher for female speakers than males (3.67% higher, p < 0.05, 95% CI 1.23%, 11.57%). We further discover that racial disparities primarily result from the neural network-based feature extraction within the voice biometric product and gender disparities primarily due to both voice inherent characteristic difference and neural network-based feature extraction. Finally, we point out strategies (e.g., feature extraction optimization) to incorporate fairness and inclusive consideration in biometrics technology.

Indexed as

VoiceWhite PeopleBiometryFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID35260572
PMCPMC8904636

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.