Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Comparing Speech and Keyboard Text Entry for Short Messages in Two Languages on Touchscreen Phones

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1608.07323 v2 pith:KGK7WLMH submitted 2016-08-25 cs.HC

Comparing Speech and Keyboard Text Entry for Short Messages in Two Languages on Touchscreen Phones

classification cs.HC
keywords speechmethodsrecognitionratealthoughenglishentrykeyboards
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

With the ubiquity of mobile touchscreen devices like smartphones, two widely used text entry methods have emerged: small touch-based keyboards and speech recognition. Although speech recognition has been available on desktop computers for years, it has continued to improve at a rapid pace, and it is currently unknown how today's modern speech recognizers compare to state-of-the-art mobile touch keyboards, which also have improved considerably since their inception. To discover both methods' "upper-bound performance," we evaluated them in English and Mandarin Chinese on an Apple iPhone 6 Plus in a laboratory setting. Our experiment was carried out using Baidu's Deep Speech 2, a deep learning-based speech recognition system, and the built-in Qwerty (English) or Pinyin (Mandarin) Apple iOS keyboards. We found that with speech recognition, the English input rate was 2.93 times faster (153 vs. 52 WPM), and the Mandarin Chinese input rate was 2.87 times faster (123 vs. 43 WPM) than the keyboard for short message transcription under laboratory conditions for both methods. Furthermore, although speech made fewer errors during entry (5.30% vs. 11.22% corrected error rate), it left slightly more errors in the final transcribed text (1.30% vs. 0.79% uncorrected error rate). Our results show that comparatively, under ideal conditions for both methods, upper-bound speech recognition performance has greatly improved compared to prior systems, and might see greater uptake in the future, although further study is required to quantify performance in non-laboratory settings for both methods.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Say What? Examining Text and Voice Input Modalities for Prompt-Based Programming in Computing Education

    cs.CY 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Among 919 intro CS students solving Prompt Problems, typed prompts beat unedited voice on first-attempt success for two of three tasks; edited voice matched text, and most preferred text.