Existing deepfake detection research has primarily focused on scenarios where the manipulated subject is actively speaking, i.e., generating fabricated content by altering the speaker's appearance or voice. However, in realistic interaction settings, attackers often alternate between falsifying speaking and listening states to mislead their targets, thereby enhancing the realism and persuasiveness of the scenario. Although the detection of 'listening deepfakes' remains largely unexplored and is hindered by a scarcity of both datasets and methodologies, the relatively limited quality of synthesized listening reactions presents an excellent breakthrough opportunity for current deepfake detection efforts. In this paper, we present the task of Listening Deepfake Detection (LDD). We introduce ListenForge, the first dataset specifically designed for this task, constructed using five Listening Head Generation (LHG) methods. To address the distinctive characteristics of listening forgeries, we propose MANet, a Motion-aware and Audio-guided Network that captures subtle motion inconsistencies in listener videos while leveraging speaker's audio semantics to guide cross-modal fusion. Extensive experiments demonstrate that existing Speaking Deepfake Detection (SDD) models perform poorly in listening scenarios. In contrast, MANet achieves significantly superior performance on ListenForge. Our work highlights the necessity of rethinking deepfake detection beyond the traditional speaking-centric paradigm and opens new directions for multimodal forgery analysis in interactive communication settings. The dataset and code are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/LDD-B4CB.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. A visualization comparison between common speaking deepfakes and our studied listening deepfakes. The former relies on the synchronization between the lip region and the given audio during speaking, while the latter manifests forged facial movements such as smiling, nodding, or shaking the head during listening.
Figure 2. ListenForge dataset construction. Utilizing five methods, we generated realistic listening videos accompanied by the speaker’s audio. The figure on the right illustrates a subset of real and fake samples from ListenForge dataset.
Figure 3. Distribution of the ListenForge dataset. (a) The ratio of real and fake samples. (b) The ratio of different methods used in forgery listening videos.
Figure 4. Illustration of the proposed MANet. (a) illustrates the overall framework. (b) illustrates the motion-aware module. (c) illustrates the audio-guided module.
Figure 5. Illustration of the spatial and channel attention.
Method
SDD
LDD
AUC
ACC
AUC
ACC
Baseline
69.09
77.57
92.03
81.88
Table 1. The AUC(%) and ACC(%) on of the baseline on the speaker-targeted and listener-targeted deepfake testsets.
Method
Modality
Valset
Testset
AUC
ACC
AUC
ACC
Xception
Visual
60.45
58.58
62.02
57.23
MesoNet
Visual
44.68
50.39
43.28
46.99
CViT
Visual
61.92
45.07
56.64
52.15
AVTFD
Audio-Visual
58.76
55.24
54.30
44.19
MRDF
Audio-Visual
55.81
62.47
45.98
50.47
Table 2. The AUC(%) and ACC(%) of the models on ListenForge without retraining.
Method
Modality
Valset
Testset
AUC
ACC
AUC
ACC
Xception
Visual
97.92
98.05
88.24
87.23
MesoNet
Visual
99.86
96.99
89.31
88.80
CViT
Visual
97.97
97.59
90.16
87.96
AVTFD
Audio-Visual
99.39
98.43
93.19
89.28
MRDF
Audio-Visual
91.51
88.58
90.32
90.58
Table 3. The AUC(%) and ACC(%) of the models on ListenForge with retraining.
Method
Valset
Testset
AUC
ACC
AUC
ACC
Baseline
98.71
93.51
92.03
81.88
+ CA
99.32
91.82
95.36
79.58
+ SA
98.56
91.20
95.36
84.40
+ SCA
9 9.18
94.34
95.43
8 4.08
+ CSA
98.01
91.20
94.42
78.53
Table 4. The AUC(%) and ACC(%) on ListenForge for models using different motion-aware modules. Underlined values indicate sub-optimal results.
Method
Valset
Testset
AUC
ACC
AUC
ACC
Baseline + MAM
99.17
94.34
95.43
84.08
+ Spk_Aud
99.05
94.03
96.51
82.93
+ Spk_Aud + AGM
99.87
98.53
97.24
89.74
+ Spk_Vid + AGM
99.79
97.48
95.88
85.55
+ Spk_AV + AGM
99.88
98.43
95.80
83.77
Table 5. The AUC(%) and ACC(%) on ListenForge for models using different audio-guided module.
Figure 6. Visualization of the attention maps. The redder the color, the higher the attention allocated to that region by the model during the inference process.
The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia · Xi’an University of Posts and Telecommunications, Xi’an, China · The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand