The abstract claims commercial ASR reaches about 78% word error rate on deaf speech versus 18% on hearing speech, but the body of the paper reports no protocol for that comparison and only cites 53% WER for the most intelligible deaf speakers.
Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and Hearing Perspectives on using Automatic Speech Recognition in Conversation
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
Many personal devices have transitioned from visual-controlled interfaces to speech-controlled interfaces to reduce costs and interactive friction, supported by the rapid growth in capabilities of speech-controlled interfaces, e.g., Amazon Echo or Apple's Siri. A consequence is that people who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) may be unable to use these speech-controlled devices. We show that deaf speech has a high error rate compared to hearing speech, in commercial speech-controlled interfaces. Deaf speech had approximately a 78% word error rate (WER) compared to a hearing speech 18% WER. Our findings show that current speech-controlled interfaces are not usable by DHH people. Based on our findings, significant advances in speech recognition software or alternative approaches will be needed for deaf use of speech-controlled interfaces. We show that current speech-controlled interfaces are not usable by DHH people.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.HC 1years
2019 1verdicts
REJECT 1roles
background 1polarities
support 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and Hearing Perspectives on using Automatic Speech Recognition in Conversation
The abstract claims commercial ASR reaches about 78% word error rate on deaf speech versus 18% on hearing speech, but the body of the paper reports no protocol for that comparison and only cites 53% WER for the most intelligible deaf speakers.