ArticleTrends in hearing
Masked-speech Recognition Using Human and Synthetic Cloned Speech.
Article in Trends in hearing. 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.
- Perceptual Adaptation to Noise-Vocoded Voice Clones.Trends in hearingArticle
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
Voice cloning is used to generate synthetic speech that mimics vocal characteristics of human talkers. This experiment used voice cloning to compare human and synthetic speech for intelligibility, human-likeness, and perceptual similarity, all tested in young adults with normal hearing. Masked-sentence recognition was evaluated using speech produced by five human talkers and their synthetically generated voice clones presented in speech-shaped noise at -6 dB signal-to-noise ratio. There were two types of sentences: semantically meaningful and nonsense. Human and automatic speech recognition scoring was used to evaluate performance. Participants were asked to rate human-likeness and determine whether pairs of sentences were produced by the same versus different people. As expected, sentence-recognition scores were worse for nonsense sentences compared to meaningful sentences, but they were similar for speech produced by human talkers and voice clones. Human-likeness scores were also similar for speech produced by human talkers and their voice clones. Participants were very good at identifying differences between voices but were less accurate at distinguishing between human/clone pairs, often leaning towards thinking they were produced by the same person. Reliability scoring by automatic speech recognition agreed with human reliability scoring for 98% of keywords and was minimally dependent on the context of the target sentences. Results provide preliminary support for the use of voice clones when evaluating the recognition of human and synthetic speech. More generally, voice synthesis and automatic speech recognition are promising tools for evaluating speech recognition in human listeners.
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.