ArticlePloS one2025
Gender and racial bias issues in a commercial "tone of voice" analysis system.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Decoding Gender in Cough Sounds: A Transformer-Based Analysis.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Social Feedback Speech Technologies (SFST) are programs and devices, often "AI"-powered, that claim to provide users with feedback about how their speech sounds to other humans. To date, academic research has not focused on how such systems perform for a variety of speakers. In 2020, Amazon released a wearable called Halo, touting its fitness and sleep tracking, as well as its ability to evaluate the wearer's voice to help them "understand how they sound to others". The band presents its wearer with 'Positivity' and 'Energy' scores, as well as qualitative evaluations of the voice: adjectives such as 'confident', 'hesitant', 'calm', etc. This study evaluates how Halo performs for American English speakers of different races and genders. We recorded Black and white men and women reading three passages aloud and played them back to the same Halo device in identical positions. We then obtained Halo's Energy and Positivity scores (out of 100), as well as the device's qualitative descriptors of 'tone of voice' for each subject. We subsequently analyzed effects of different acoustic properties, as well as speaker race/gender and the interaction, for how the device scores 'tone of voice'. Overall, Halo's Energy ratings and qualitative descriptors are biased against women and Black speakers. Halo's Positivity scores appear to be based on lexical sentiment analysis and therefore do not vary substantially by speaker. We conclude by discussing the expanding role of SFSTs and their potential harms related to the reinforcement of existing societal and algorithmic biases against marginalized speakers.
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.