Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40019935›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Gender and racial bias issues in a commercial "tone of voice" analysis system.

Nicole R Holliday, Paul E Reed

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Nicole R HollidayDepartment of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8921-2509
Paul E ReedDepartment of Communicative Disorders, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

RacismSexismVoiceAdultFemaleHumansMaleWearable Electronic DevicesWhiteWhite PeopleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40019935
PMCPMC11870350

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.