I Hear, Therefore I Trust: A Socio-Technical Investigation of Humans as Synthetic Speech Detectors

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.

Speech deepfake detectors usually emit one score per utterance, but a borderline score does not reveal why two examples differ during retrospective error analysis. We ask whether a final score can be calibrated from component fields while keeping those fields visible for inspection. We build a decision record with a passive detector score and a score from a probe applied to a marked copy. It also includes retrieval support held out of the evaluated family, a margin from a support-set profile, and raw neighbor closeness. A cross-fit calibrator combines these fields and two differences between raw scores into one final score. On matched ASVspoof development data, the calibrated record reduces equal error rate (EER) by 3.48 percentage points relative to the fixed retrieval-augmented rule. It reaches 8.43% EER, whereas a passive WavLM baseline reaches 6.71% on the same subset. The record is therefore not the strongest detector in this comparison. Its value is to retain inspectable component fields while producing one scalar score for retrospective diagnosis.

Audio deepfake detectors are trained to distinguish genuine speech from synthetic speech and often perform well on standard benchmarks. Yet the same detector that achieves less than 1% error on one dataset can see its error rate increase twentyfold when evaluated on a different dataset. We argue that one contributing factor is speaker-identity reliance: standard training corpora correlate speaker identity with the genuine/synthetic label, allowing detectors to partially rely on speaker-related cues rather than synthesis artifacts alone. We propose the Identity Sensitivity Score (ISS), a per-utterance diagnostic that quantifies how much a detector's output changes across different speaker identity contexts. ISS requires no ground-truth labels at inference time and can be computed from the detector score and a pool of reference speaker examples. Across two detectors and two datasets, incorrectly classified utterances have ISS scores 29 to 52 times higher than correctly classified utterances, and ISS alone predicts misclassification with area-under-curve (AUC) up to 0.954. To test whether ISS actually captures identity-sensitive behavior rather than serving only as a proxy for prediction confidence, we apply voice conversion to 500 utterances and measure the resulting detector-score shift. Utterances flagged as identity-sensitive by ISS respond 19 to 30 times more strongly to this manipulation than utterances flagged as stable. These results position ISS as a practical inference-time diagnostic for speaker-dependent failure analysis in audio deepfake detection.