Beyond Utterance-Level Speaker Similarity: Perception-Aligned Segmental Evaluation of Accent in Speech Generation
Organizations: Centre for Speech Technology Research, University of Edinburgh
Abstract
Utterance-level similarity ratings do not reveal where perceived accent differences occur in generated speech. We introduce a segmental evaluation protocol combining speaker and accent similarity ratings with subword annotations of perceived accent differences provided by listeners from target accent regions. Using newly collected recordings, 47 retained listeners evaluate 200 content-matched reference--candidate pairs spanning four Scottish and Australian voices, two zero-shot TTS systems, and an articulation-based voice conversion system. Subword annotations locate salient pronunciation differences and sometimes yield different system rankings from similarity ratings. Speaker and accent ratings remain strongly associated (), highlighting the value of examining local perceptual evidence beyond these scores. Evaluation of seven objective distances reveals weak correspondence with subword selections, with correlations reaching at most . We release code, data, and an interactive demo to support the development of perceptually grounded segmental accent evaluation.
Figures & tables
| Inter-annotator agreement | S-Anno-Freq (%) | S-ACC-SMOS | S-SPK-SMOS | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Speaker | Fleiss’ | Krippendorff’s | F5-TTS | MaskGCT | SPARC | F5-TTS | MaskGCT | SPARC | F5-TTS | MaskGCT | SPARC |
| Australian female | 0.184 | 0.192 | 17.95 1.45 | 20.11 1.88 | 15.92 1.98 | 3.14 0.16 | 2.94 0.17 | 2.77 0.24 | 3.62 0.16 | 3.30 0.17 | 1.14 0.11 |
| Australian male | 0.234 | 0.240 | 22.07 1.53 | 22.37 1.44 | 19.95 2.15 | 2.81 0.17 | 3.16 0.17 | 3.10 0.27 | 3.11 0.18 | 3.51 0.17 | 2.99 0.27 |
| Scottish female | 0.232 | 0.237 | 23.92 1.69 | 23.57 1.55 | 17.05 2.23 | 1.98 0.13 | 2.54 0.15 | 3.91 0.18 | 2.32 0.14 | 2.65 0.15 | 3.73 0.19 |
| Scottish male | 0.184 | 0.187 | 22.74 1.31 | 22.83 1.36 | 18.20 2.07 | 2.06 0.13 | 2.48 0.13 | 3.57 0.18 | 2.22 0.14 | 2.41 0.15 | 2.83 0.21 |
| Utterance-level Metric | S-ACC-Freq ∗ | S-ACC-SMOS | S-SPK-SMOS |
|---|---|---|---|
| S-ACC-Freq ∗ | 1.00 | ||
| S-ACC-SMOS | 0.48 | 1.00 | |
| S-SPK-SMOS | 0.27 | 0.71 | 1.00 |
| O-F0 ∗ | -0.07 | 0.12 | 0.05 |
| O-Formants ∗ | -0.09 | 0.30 | 0.27 |
| O-PPG ∗ | 0.22 | 0.15 | -0.25 |
| Subword-level Metric | Mean | Max | Midpoint |
|---|---|---|---|
| O-F0 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.08 |
| O-Formants | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.02 |
| O-PPG | 0.07 | 0.15 | 0.05 |
| O-SPK (ECAPA-TDNN) | 0.08 | 0.15 | 0.04 |
| O-SPK (WavLM-SV) | 0.19 | 0.22 | 0.16 |
| O-ACC (GenAID) | 0.11 | 0.16 | 0.09 |
Speech Generation Evaluation
Speech generation evaluation measures the intelligibility, naturalness, fidelity, and controllability of synthesized and conversational speech.
See all 59 papers