ArticleBehavior research methods2024
How ready is speech-to-text for psychological language research? Evaluating the validity of AI-generated English transcripts for analyzing free-spoken responses in younger and older adults.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Brief speech samples reveal emotional states in daily life.PNAS nexus · 2026Article
- Beyond who, what, and where: Findings from two experiments on age group differences in narrative elaborateness of autobiographical events.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language model performance and reliability in scoring picture description tasks for neuropsychological assessment.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Semi-Supervised Clustering for Identification of MCI and Dementia Cohorts with a Brief Digital Cognitive Assessment.Research square · 2026Article
- When nonstandard meets standard: Language and affective dynamics in accent-diverse group interactions.PloS one · 2026Article
- Autoscribe: An automated tool for creating transcribed TextGrids from audio-recorded conversations.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Accuracy of Speech-to-Text Transcription in a Digital Cognitive Assessment for Older Adults.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Younger and Older Adults' Aging Well Construals: A Quantitative Word Use and Topics Comparison.Gerontology · 2025Article
- Spoken Language Analysis in Aging Research: The Validity of AI-Generated Speech to Text Using OpenAI's Whisper.Gerontology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
For the longest time, the gold standard in preparing spoken language corpora for text analysis in psychology was using human transcription. However, such standard comes at extensive cost, and creates barriers to quantitative spoken language analysis that recent advances in speech-to-text technology could address. The current study quantifies the accuracy of AI-generated transcripts compared to human-corrected transcripts across younger (n = 100) and older (n = 92) adults and two spoken language tasks. Further, it evaluates the validity of Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC)-features extracted from these two kinds of transcripts, as well as transcripts specifically prepared for LIWC analyses via tagging. We find that overall, AI-generated transcripts are highly accurate with a word error rate of 2.50% to 3.36%, albeit being slightly less accurate for younger compared to older adults. LIWC features extracted from either transcripts are highly correlated, while the tagging procedure significantly alters filler word categories. Based on these results, automatic speech-to-text appears to be ready for psychological language research when using spoken language tasks in relatively quiet environments, unless filler words are of interest to researchers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.