ArticleScientific reports2026
Human detection of AI-generated faces and voices is not domain-general.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent technological advances have resulted in synthetic faces and voices being perceptually indistinguishable from real faces and voices in typical populations. Faces and voices possess rich personal and social information, meaning synthetic faces and voices, commonly known as "deepfakes" can be used for identity theft, financial fraud, and misinformation campaigns. It is currently unknown whether detection of real versus synthetic content is modality-specific, or whether it generalizes across sensory domains. We conducted a preregistered study in which participants classified real and AI-generated faces and voices. Performance for both face and voice classification was significantly above chance. Using signal detection theory to analyze individuals' ability to classify stimuli, we observed no evidence of a domain-general effect, indicating detection ability may not generalize across face and voice domains and is instead domain-specific. Participants' confidence tracked accuracy for faces but not for voices, suggesting metacognitive insight may be modality-specific. The findings are discussed in terms of whether the absence of an effect reflects classification driven solely by domain-specific abilities or arises from the experimental design itself. Ultimately, in applied contexts, it is important to recognize that expertise in detecting synthetic content might be modality specific.
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.