The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 156 of the 175 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The State of Speech in HCI: Trends, Themes and Challenges
Open accessAbstract
Speech interfaces are growing in popularity. Through a review of 99 research papers this work maps the trends, themes, findings and methods of empirical research on speech interfaces in the field of human–computer interaction (HCI). We find that studies are usability/theory-focused or explore wider system experiences, evaluating Wizard of Oz, prototypes or developed systems. Measuring task and interaction was common, as was using self-report questionnaires to measure concepts like usability and user attitudes. A thematic analysis of the research found that speech HCI work focuses on nine key topics: system speech production, design insight, modality comparison, experiences with interactive voice response systems, assistive technology and accessibility, user speech production, using speech technology for development, peoples’ experiences with intelligent personal assistants and how user memory affects speech interface interaction. From these insights we identify gaps and challenges in speech research, notably taking into account technological advancements, the need to develop theories of speech interface interaction, grow critical mass in this domain, increase design work and expand research from single to multiple user interaction contexts so as to reflect current use contexts. We also highlight the need to improve measure reliability, validity and consistency, in the wild deployment and reduce barriers to building fully functional speech interfaces for research.RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: Most papers focused on usability/theory-based or wider system experience research with a focus on Wizard of Oz and developed systems Questionnaires on usability and user attitudes often used but few were reliable or validated Thematic analysis showed nine primary research topics Challenges identified in theoretical approaches and design guidelines, engaging with technological advances, multiple user and in the wild contexts, critical research mass and barriers to building speech interfaces
Overview
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“As extensively noted in VUI literature, VUIs are not “conversational” in nature [24,25,31,36,45,83].”
From OK Google, Let's Learn: Using Voice User Interfaces for Informal Self-Regulated Learning of Health Topics among Younger and Older Adults (2023) · cites this paper as [24]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Centred on the main dialogue actor in the breakdown-repairing process, research in repair strategies has been broadly divided into two areas: investigations into system-repair strategies and studies on user-repair strategies [10, 16].”
From System and User Strategies to Repair Conversational Breakdowns of Spoken Dialogue Systems: A Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as [16]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414 · cited 2×
“Inductive Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was conducted on the final search results to categorize the research themes discussed in each publication.”
Designing the user interface strategies for effective human-computer interaction
Shneiderman, B. (1998) · SIGB · doi:10.1145/25065.950626 · Cited by 4,680
Listen, attend and spell: A neural network for large vocabulary conversational speech recognition
Chan, W., Jaitly, N., Le, Q., & Vinyals, O. (2016) · 2016 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) · doi:10.1109/icassp.2016.7472621 · Cited by 2,226
Talking about tactile experiences
Obrist, M., Seah, S. A., & Subramanian, S. (2013) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2470654.2466220 · Cited by 1,634
Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation.
Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037//0278-7393.22.6.1482 · Cited by 1,529 · cited 2×
“A key debate around the role of partner models seems to be emerging in HCI based publications, which reflects debates on language production more generally (Brennan & Clark, 1996; Horton & Keysar, 1996; Keysar, Barr, & Horton, 1998).”
BackgroundBødker, S., Dindler, C., Iversen, O. S., & Smith, R. C. (2017) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9780203744338 · Cited by 1,517 · cited 1×
“Approaches commonly used in interaction design research such as cultural probes (DeHaemer & Wallace, 1992), contextual inquiry (Holtzblatt & Jones, 1993), and participatory design more generally (Schuler & Namioka, 1993) tended not to be used in the research we reviewed.”
MethodEmotion and sociable humanoid robots
Breazeal, C. (2003) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00018-1 · Cited by 1,279 · cited 1×
“This was to avoid studies where speech is confounded by issues of embodiment, such as gesture and emotive facial expressions (Breazeal, 2003), that can affect users’ interactions and experiences (Bruce, Nourbakhsh, & Simmons, 2002; Kuno et al., 2007).”
BackgroundLuger, E., & Sellen, A. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858288 · Cited by 1,176 · cited 5×
“Our review indicates that there has been some recent progress towards this (e.g. Luger & Sellen, 2016; Porcheron et al., 2017; Cowan et al., 2017).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialCurrent practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research
Hornbæk, K. (2006) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.06.002 · Cited by 1,123
Dahlbäck, N., Jönsson, A., & Ahrenberg, L. (1993) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/169891.169968 · Cited by 784 · cited 1×
“In WoZ studies participants are led to believe they are interacting with a system, however, a (usually unseen) confederate controls the system’s output (Dahlbäck, Jönsson, & Ahrenberg, 1993).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
19 of the 175 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Bargas-avila, 2011, In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems
- Cuendet, 2013, Conference on human factors in computing systems-proceedings, 2833, 10.1145/2470654.2481392 · DOI
- Kamitis, 2016, Intelligent Personal Assistant-Products, Technologies and Market: 2017–2022
- LaPlante, 1992, Assistive technology devices and home accessibility features: prevalence, payment, need, and trends, Adv Data Vital Health Stat, 217, 1
- Munteanu, 2014, CHI’14 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, 1035, 10.1145/2559206.2567826 · DOI
- Nielsen, 1994, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Proc. 3rd Annual ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium, 152, 10.1145/191666.191729 · DOI · Paper page
- Norman, 2013, The Design of Everyday Things (revised and expanded edition)
- Pearl, 2016, Designing Voice User Interfaces: Principles of Conversational Experiences
- Qvarfordt, 2003, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Multimodal interfaces, 8
- Weinschenk, 2000, Designing Effective Speech Interfaces
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–227 of 227
AIXE. Building a scale to evaluate the UX of AI-infused products
Sciannamè, M. (2023) · IASDR 2023: Life-Changing Design · doi:10.21606/iasdr.2023.355 · Cited by 1
“In their overview, (Clark et al., 2019) point out interesting qualities to keep in consideration, such as user attitudes (towards the interface), task performance (total of dialogue turns, task completion, etc.), lexis and syntax choice, perceived usability, user recall (of specific aspects and…”
Abrantes, C., Camargo, J., Nunes, J., Antunes, M., Mealha, Ó., & Nóbrega, L. (2023) · Social Science Research Network · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4036361 · Cited by 1
“Speech has even become the primary form of interaction with home devices like Amazon Echo, Google Home, and Apple HomePod (Clark et al., 2019).”
BackgroundRanhel, J., & de Lima, C. V. (2022) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.13804 · Cited by 1
“Many articles use post-interaction forms as a research method in which users report their usability/performance experiences [32], [33].”
Lui, M. D. L. C. D. L. C., de Oliveira, M. J., Bernardes, R., Borini, F., & Rodrigo, P. (2022) · International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM) · doi:10.1142/s0219877022410097 · Cited by 1
Speak: A Toolkit Using Amazon Mechanical Turk to Collect and Validate Speech Audio Recordings
Song, C., Harwath, D. F., Alhanai, T., & Glass, J. R. (2022) · International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation · doi:10.63317/2cyqvnot7vty · Cited by 1
“They are used in a variety of academic disciplines, including speech recognition, human computer interaction (Clark et al., 2019), neuroscience (Anumanchipalli et al., 2019; Ak-bari et al., 2019), psychology (Pouw et al., 2020), and medicine (Anfinrud et al., 2020; Karan et al., 2020; Alhanai et…”
BackgroundMorning Routines between Calm and Engaging: Designing a Smart Mirror
Esau, M., Lawo, D., Castelli, N., Jakobi, T., & Stevens, G. (2021) · International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications · doi:10.5220/0010658700003060 · Cited by 1
“Smart Speakers, Displays, and Mirrors are frequently introduced as smart home control interfaces (Clark et al., 2019; Athira et al., 2016; Ardito et al., 2015).”
BackgroundLightweight Protection for Privacy in Offloaded Speech Understanding
Cai, D. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.11983
“…uploaded to the cloud for spoken language understanding (SLU) is steadily increasing [1, 2, 12], particularly in ubiquitous wimpy devices where textual input is inconvenient [3, 17, 41], e.g., home automation devices [32], smartwatches [37], telehealth sensors [22] and smart factory sensors [29] .”
DOBI: Dynamic Opportunistic Body Input via Spare Joint Recruitment for Hands-Free XR
Kim, R., Qian, X., & Yoon, S. H. (2026) · Proceedings of the 39th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology · doi:10.1145/3830398.3830670
“For instance, voice input may be socially inappropriate in public settings [13] and degrades significantly in noisy environments [10]; gaze is effective for pointing but suffers from the Midas touch problem [30] and induces fatigue during continuous control [28, 39]; EMG signals are sensitive to…”
Empathy through the Lens of Conversational Agents: A Systematic Review
Khadka, S., & Desai, S. (2026) · ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) · doi:10.1145/3816046.3816220 · Cited by 1
“We selected these databases by adopting the approach used by Clark et al. [20].”
Lopatovska, I., & Murad, C. (2026) · ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) · doi:10.1145/3816046.3816270
“…a set of usability heuristics for CUIs developed by 2 Literature review Past decades have seen the development of tools to evaluate and assess graphical user interfaces (GUI), ranging from design guidelines and heuristics [24] [25] to task performance and self-report questionnaires [5] [8-9].”
Synthetic Persuasion: An Exploratory Pre-Study on User Perception of Computer Voice Persuasiveness
Förster, A. L., Schubhan, M., Bräuer, P., Krath, J., Seaborn, K., & Altmeyer, M. (2026) · ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) · doi:10.1145/3816046.3816290
“Notably, voice-specific UX factors such as appeal, anthropomor-phism, aversion, comfort, and trustworthiness remain largely un-explored [4, 29, 30, 32], especially in persuasive contexts.”
STELLA: An Open-Source Platform for Auditable Voice-First Conversational Health Coaching Agents
Moser, F. P., Vinay, R., & Kowatsch, T. (2026) · International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3816046.3816293
Jeromela, J., Murtagh-White, M., Gajcin, J., Debnath, A., Barman, D., & Conlan, O. (2026) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3774935.3806186
“Intelligent Personal Assistants (IPAs) have become ubiquitous over the past decade and a half, with prominent examples such as Siri, Google Assistant, and Alexa integrated in smartphones, home controllers and desktop computers [14, 27, 46].”
Equanimity in HRI: Applying Calm Technology Principles to Human-Robot Interaction
Sienkiewicz, B., & Indurkhya, B. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-3525-2_41
“[1, p. 36] Voice interfaces are convenient, but often lack reliability in their operation [28].”
Alqadda, R. F., Alhumaidi, F. B., Alsadah, K. H., Alahmari, D. D., Hegazi, M., & Aljamaan, I. A. (2026) · Results in Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2025.108633
EEG-Based Envisioned Speech Recognition System Using Spectral Graph Wavelet Transform
Pachori, D., Caroprese, L., & Manikandan, M. (2025) · European Signal Processing Conference · doi:10.23919/eusipco63237.2025.11226531
“Despite of these advancements in HCIs, there are various challenges [4].”
Fine-grained Voice Customization via Intensity Guided Latent Space Exploration
Wong, K.-Y., & Chung, F. (2025) · IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Network · doi:10.1109/ijcnn64981.2025.11229144
“In user-centric applications, the choice of speaker voice can often impact user experience [8].”
Internet Access by Voice Commands: Navigation Application for Facebook, Gmail and Chrome
Cruz, J. H. M., Correa, H. L., & Rodríguez, S. E. N. (2025) · REVISTA COLOMBIANA DE TECNOLOGIAS DE AVANZADA (RCTA) · doi:10.24054/rcta.v1i45.2963
“The presence of computers and the Internet in academic, work and personal environments has modified the forms of communication between humans [6].”
Beyond usability: innovation in the digital age as an antidote to social isolation
Lui, M. D. L. C., Bernardes, R., de Oliveira, M. J., & Sumlin, C. (2024) · International Journal of Innovation · doi:10.5585/2024.26088
Adaptive and User-Centered HCI for Intelligent Technologies: A Global Perspective
Abdurrohman (2024) · Digitus : Journal of Computer Science Applications · doi:10.61978/digitus.v2i4.854
“For instance, Clark et al. (2019) highlighted a pressing need for theoretical advancements in voice-based HCI to support diverse interaction contexts and enhance user experience.”
Dubiel, M., Aylett, M., Schmitt, A., Ma, Z., Hsieh, G., & Wambsganss, T. (2024) · IUI Companion · doi:10.1145/3640544.3645258
Self-citationMurad, C., Munteanu, C., Cowan, B. R., Clark, L., Porcheron, M., Fischer, J., Candello, H., & Langevin, R. (2023) · International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3571884.3597440
“We are also seeing a large commercial push and demand for usable CUIs - many of which we’ve already seen the likes of, such as Google Assistant, Amazon Alexa, and Siri.”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationFrom eyes to ears how to deal with the acoustic element ‘voice’ as a visual designer
Hensel, D., Bauer, B., & Voß, S. (2021) · LearnxDesign 2021: Engaging with challenges in design education · doi:10.21606/drs_lxd2021.04.121
Perception of Synthetic Voices in Human-Agent Interaction
Warchhold, S., & Duran, D. (2020) · International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction · doi:10.1145/3406499.3418756
“A recent review on the state of the art in research on spoken dialog systems showed that most of the reviewed studies explored “usability” or “concepts and theories from research in human communication” [4].”
BackgroundKnight, J., Jones, R., Sayar, D., Copeland, D., & Fitton, D. (2020) · Smart Systems Design, Applications, and Challenges · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-2112-0.ch012
“Rather than being truly conversational, many of these applications are tightly constrained and highly task-oriented in nature (Clark et al., 2019b), with users requesting the proxies to execute tasks on their behalf.”
BackgroundEditorial Conclusion—Where Do We Go from Here?
Sayago, S. (2019) · Human–Computer Interaction Series · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-06076-3_16
Metadata
- Authors
- Clark, L., Doyle, P., Garaialde, D., Gilmartin, E., Schlögl, S., Edlund, J., Aylett, M., Cabral, J., Munteanu, C., Edwards, J., & R Cowan, B.
- Affiliations
- University College Dublin (IE)
- Trinity College Dublin (IE)
- Universität Innsbruck (AT)
- KTH Royal Institute of Technology (SE)
- CereProc (United Kingdom) (GB)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- School of Information and Communication Studies, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
- Corresponding author
- Clark, Leigh
- ORCID
- Venue
- Interacting with Computers
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2019-06-01
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 349-371
- ISSN
- 0953-5438 (ISSN-L)
- 1873-7951
- OpenAlex
- W2896893982
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 175
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 9
- FWCI
- 10.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- Interacting with Computers (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Irish Research Council
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Keywords
- speech interfaces, usability evaluation, Wizard of Oz, interactive voice response, assistive technology, accessibility, virtual assistants, user memory, speech production, modality comparison, research gaps, measurement reliability
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