Is Seeing Believing? Evaluating Human Sensitivity to Synthetic Video

Deepfakes are increasingly realistic and easy to produce, raising concerns about the reliability of human judgments in misinformation settings. We study audiovisual deepfake detection by measuring how consistently crowd workers distinguish authentic from manipulated videos and, when they flag a video as manipulated, how accurately they identify the manipulation type (audio-only, video-only, or audio-video) and how consistently they report manipulation timestamps. We run two matched crowdsourcing studies on Prolific using AV-Deepfake1M and the Trusted Media Challenge (TMC) dataset. We sample 48 videos per dataset (96 total) and collect 960 judgments (10 per video). Results show that crowd workers rarely misclassify authentic videos as manipulated, but they miss many manipulations, and agreement remains limited across videos. Aggregating multiple judgments per video stabilizes the authenticity signal, but it cannot recover manipulations that most workers consistently miss. Manipulation type identification is substantially noisier than authenticity detection even when workers detect a manipulation, with joint audio-video cases being particularly hard to recognize. Overall, these findings suggest that crowdsourcing can provide a scalable screening signal for audiovisual authenticity, while reliable modality attribution remains an open challenge.

Audio deepfakes have improved rapidly recently, yet their effect on human trust in real speech remains unstudied. We present the largest listening study on audio deepfake perception to date, collecting 35,532 judgments from 1,768 participants across 138 text-to-speech and voice conversion systems. Our central finding is a skepticism shift: compared to a 2021 baseline, human accuracy on fake samples barely changed (72.9% to 71.2%), but accuracy on real samples dropped from 72.7% to 64.1%. Participants are not worse at detecting synthesis artifacts; rather, they increasingly distrust authentic speech. Samples generated by commercial and autoregressive language model systems proved hardest to detect (61.3 - 65.9%), while those from traditional seq2seq and flow-matching models remain easier to spot (75.4 - 76.8%). An ML detector that served as a reference point maintained over 94.5% accuracy across all conditions. Our results suggest that the primary threat posed by modern deepfakes may not be mere deception, but the erosion of trust in genuine audio.

Automatic deepfake detection has received considerable research attention, yet the socio-technical environment in which humans actually encounter synthetic speech remains poorly understood. We investigate voice deepfake detection as a perceptual and contextual process, presenting a localization task in which 47 participants marked suspected synthetic segments across authentic, fully synthetic, and partially synthetic utterances under three manipulated trust cues: instructional framing, affective priming, and provenance labeling. Participants provided quality ratings on mechanicalness, expressiveness, intelligibility, clarity, calmness, and confidence of evaluation. Utterance class was the primary determinant of detection accuracy and perceptual quality; trust cues produced no main effects but motivated detection behavior. Fully synthetic speech was detected at below-chance levels. Quality ratings tracked utterance type, indicating implicit discrimination where overt detection failed.