"This Wasn't Made for Me": Recentering User Experience and Emotional Impact in the Evaluation of ASR Bias
Authors: Siyu Liang, Alicia Beckford Wassink
Organizations: University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Abstract
Studies on bias in Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) tend to focus on reporting error rates for speakers of underrepresented dialects, yet less research examines the human side of system bias: how do system failures shape users' lived experiences, how do users feel about and react to them, and what emotional toll do these repeated failures exact? We conducted user experience studies across four U.S. locations (Atlanta, Gulf Coast, Miami Beach, and Tucson) representing distinct English dialect communities. Our findings reveal that most participants report technologies fail to consider their cultural backgrounds and require constant adjustment to achieve basic functionality. Despite these experiences, participants maintain high expectations for ASR performance and express strong willingness to contribute to model improvement. Qualitative analysis of open-ended narratives exposes the deeper costs of these failures. Participants report frustration, annoyance, and feelings of inadequacy, yet the emotional impact extends beyond momentary reactions. Participants recognize that systems were not designed for them, yet often internalize failures as personal inadequacy despite this critical awareness. They perform extensive invisible labor, including code-switching, hyper-articulation, and emotional management, to make failing systems functional. Meanwhile, their linguistic and cultural knowledge remains unrecognized by technologies that encode particular varieties as standard while rendering others marginal. These findings demonstrate that algorithmic fairness assessments based on accuracy metrics alone miss critical dimensions of harm: the emotional labor of managing repeated technological rejection, the cognitive burden of constant self-monitoring, and the psychological toll of feeling inadequate in one's native language variety.
Many studies have shown automatic speech processing (ASR) systems have unequal performance across speakergroups (SG's). However, the manner in which such studies arrive at this conclusion is inconsistent. To pave the wayfor more reliable results in future studies, we lay out best practices for benchmarking ASR fairness based on literaturefrom machine learning fairness, social sciences, and speech science. We first describe the importance of preciselythe fairness hypothesis being interrogated, and tailoring fairness metrics to apply specifically to said hypothesis.We then examine several benchmarks used to rate ASR systems on fairness and discuss how their results can bemisconstrued without assiduous oversight into the intersections between SG's. We find that evaluating fairnessbased on single heterogeneous SG's, such as they are defined in fairness benchmarks, can lead to misidentifyingwhich SG's are actually being mistreated by ASR systems. We advocate for as fine-grained an analysis as possibleof the intersectionality of as many demographic variables as are available in the metadata of fairness corpora in orderto tease out such spurious correlations
Automatic speech recognition (ASR) evaluation compares system output to ground truth transcripts, with Word Error Rate (WER) quantifying the distance between them. But ground truth transcripts are not discovered - they are produced by human annotators following conventions that encode normative assumptions about which speech features matter. Different conventions (verbatim, non-verbatim, legal) produce different transcripts of identical speech and judge the same ASR output differently. This paper argues that reference monism - enforcing a single transcription convention as ground truth - commits epistemic injustice. Speakers with aphasia, whose speech includes clinically meaningful disfluencies, are systematically disadvantaged when evaluated against "clean" references that treat those disfluencies as errors. The harm is not merely differential performance, but that evaluative infrastructure lacks interpretive resources to recognize their contributions as legitimate. We develop a philosophical framework introducing the hermeneutical gap, formalize Epistemic Injustice Distance (EID) to measure reference monism's cost, and demonstrate empirically using AphasiaBank that WER varies depending on which convention defines ground truth. We propose WER-Range: reporting performance across legitimate conventions rather than assuming a single correct answer.
Anna Seo Gyeong Choi, Maria Teleki, James Caverlee +3
Modern automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems have been observed to function better for certain speaker groups (SGs) than others, despite recent gains in overall performance. One potential impediment to progress towards fairer ASR is a more nuanced understanding of the types of modeling errors that speech encoder models make, and in particular the difference between the structure of embeddings for high-performance and low-performance SGs. This paper proposes a framework typifying two types of error that can occur in modeling phonemes in ASR systems: random error/high variance in phoneme embedding, vs systematic error/embedding bias. We find that training phoneme classification probes only on a single, typically disadvantaged SG, sometimes improves performance for that SG, which is evidence for the existence of SG-level bias in phoneme embeddings. On the other hand, we find that speakers and SGs with higher levels of phoneme variance are the same as those with worse phoneme prediction accuracy. We conclude that both types of error are present in phoneme embeddings and both are candidate causes for SG-level unfairness in ASR, though random error is likely a greater hindrance to fairness than systematic error. Furthermore, we find that finetuning encoder models using a fairness-enhancing algorithm (domain enhancing and adversarial training) changes neither the benefits of in-domain phoneme classification probe training, nor measured levels of random embedding error.
Felix Herron, Solange Rossato, Alexandre Allauzen +1