The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Which words are hard to recognize? Prosodic, lexical, and disfluency factors that increase speech recognition error rates
Open accessOverview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Past work has also found that ASRs perform somewhat worse on conversational speech from male speakers than female speakers, likely due to male speakers using more informal style with shorter, more reduced pronunciations and more disfluencies (28, 29).”
From Racial disparities in automated speech recognition (2020) · cites this paper as [28]
In the citing paper
“age and gender are also known to impact the performance of ASR systems (28, 29).”
From Racial disparities in automated speech recognition (2020) · cites this paper as [28]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2000) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 355,893
Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer
(2011) · Ear and Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e31821473f7 · Cited by 8,010
Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics using R
Baayen, R. H. (2008) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511801686 · Cited by 3,253
Recognizing Spoken Words: The Neighborhood Activation Model
Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998) · Ear and Hearing · doi:10.1097/00003446-199802000-00001 · Cited by 1,982
Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition
Marslen‐Wilson, W. D. (1987) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(87)90005-9 · Cited by 1,817
A Maximum Entropy Model for Part-Of-Speech Tagging
Ratnaparkhi, A. (1996) · Cited by 1,328
Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains
Fougeron, C., & Keating, P. (1997) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.418332 · Cited by 1,002
Probabilistic Phonotactics and Neighborhood Activation in Spoken Word Recognition
Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1999) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2618 · Cited by 828
Permutation, Parametric and Bootstrap Tests of Hypotheses
(2005) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/b138696 · Cited by 707
Minimum Phone Error and I-smoothing for improved discriminative training
Povey, D., & Woodland, P. C. (2002) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp.2002.5743665 · Cited by 623
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Racial disparities in automated speech recognition
Koenecke, A., Nam, A., Lake, E., Nudell, J., Quartey, M., Mengesha, Z., Toups, C., Rickford, J. R., Jurafsky, D., & Goel, S. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1915768117 · Cited by 765
Self-citationGender and Dialect Bias in YouTube’s Automatic Captions
Tatman, R. (2017) · Proceedings of the First ACL Workshop on Ethics in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/w17-1606 · Cited by 338
DECONSTRUCTING COMPREHENSIBILITY
Isaacs, T., & Trofimovich, P. (2012) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263112000150 · Cited by 325
Fluency Bank: A new resource for fluency research and practice
Bernstein Ratner, N., & MacWhinney, B. (2018) · Journal of Fluency Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2018.03.002 · Cited by 124
Lexicon-Free Conversational Speech Recognition with Neural Networks
Maas, A. L., Xie, Z., Jurafsky, D., & Ng, A. Y. (2015) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.3115/v1/n15-1038 · Cited by 120
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Goldwater, S., Jurafsky, D., & Manning, C. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Goldwater, Sharon
- Venue
- Speech Communication
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-03
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 181-200
- ISSN
- 0167-6393 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2131694695
- Cited by
- 166
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 6.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Speech Communication (publishedVersion)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Trinity's Access to Research Output (TARA) (Trinity College Dublin) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative
- Office of Naval Research
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech Recognition and Synthesis
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Speech and Audio Processing
- Keywords
- speech recognition errors, prosody, disfluency, discourse markers, speaker differences, conversational speech
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
