mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Human Perception of Audio Deepfakes

arXiv 2107.09667 ↗First posted 20 Jul 2021cs.HC cs.AI cs.SDcited by 15

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The recent emergence of deepfakes has brought manipulated and generated content to the forefront of machine learning research. Automatic detection of deepfakes has seen many new machine learning techniques, however, human detection capabilities are far less explored. In this paper, we present results from comparing the abilities of humans and machines for detecting audio deepfakes used to imitate someone's voice. For this, we use a web-based application framework formulated as a game. Participants were asked to distinguish between real and fake audio samples. In our experiment, 472 unique users competed against a state-of-the-art AI deepfake detection algorithm for 14912 total of rounds of the game. We find that humans and deepfake detection algorithms share similar strengths and weaknesses, both struggling to detect certain types of attacks. This is in contrast to the superhuman performance of AI in many application areas such as object detection or face recognition. Concerning human success factors, we find that IT professionals have no advantage over non-professionals but native speakers have an advantage over non-native speakers. Additionally, we find that older participants tend to be more susceptible than younger ones. These insights may be helpful when designing future cybersecurity training for humans as well as developing better detection algorithms.

Key facts. Cited by 15 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Jul 2021.

Builds on

18 of 44 references.

References · 18

  1. 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,928
  2. 2016WaveNet: A Generative Model for Raw Audiocited by 1,710
  3. 2019FaceForensics++: Learning to Detect Manipulated Facial Imagescited by 1,095
  4. 2017Natural TTS Synthesis by Conditioning WaveNet on Mel Spectrogram Predictionscited by 800
  5. 2017Tacotron: Towards End-to-End Speech Synthesiscited by 487
  6. 2020The Creation and Detection of Deepfakes: A Surveycited by 246
  7. 2018Speaker Recognition from Raw Waveform with SincNetcited by 166
  8. 2020End-to-end anti-spoofing with RawNet2cited by 160
  9. 2021Deepfake Detection by Human Crowds, Machines, and Machine-informed Crowdscited by 58
  10. 2021A Comparative Study on Recent Neural Spoofing Countermeasures for Synthetic Speech Detectioncited by 56
  11. 2019STC Antispoofing Systems for the ASVspoof2019 Challengecited by 51
  12. 2021Speech is Silver, Silence is Golden: What do ASVspoof-trained Models Really Learn?cited by 36
6 more
  1. 2019Deep Residual Neural Networks for Audio Spoofing Detectioncited by 33
  2. 2021An Initial Investigation for Detecting Partially Spoofed Audiocited by 27
  3. 2020Predictions of Subjective Ratings and Spoofing Assessments of Voice Conversion Challenge 2020 Submissionscited by 19
  4. 2020Deepfake detection: humans vs. machinescited by 14
  5. 2019Ensemble Models for Spoofing Detection in Automatic Speaker Verificationcited by 8
  6. 2020Comparison of Speech Representations for Automatic Quality Estimation in Multi-Speaker Text-to-Speech Synthesiscited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 0; 2023: 3; 2024: 5; 2025: 3; 2026: 3.

15 papers.

Sort: