# Eroding Trust in Real Speech: A Large-Scale Study of Human Audio Deepfake Perception

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.26136 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.26136/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 34 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Natural TTS Synthesis by Conditioning WaveNet on Mel Spectrogram Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1712.05884/) (2017)
- [Conditional Variational Autoencoder with Adversarial Learning for End-to-End Text-to-Speech](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.06103/) (2021)
- [Grad-TTS: A Diffusion Probabilistic Model for Text-to-Speech](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.06337/) (2021)
- [F5-TTS: A Fairytaler that Fakes Fluent and Faithful Speech with Flow Matching](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.06885/) (2024)
- [End-to-end anti-spoofing with RawNet2](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.01108/) (2020)
- [StyleTTS 2: Towards Human-Level Text-to-Speech through Style Diffusion and Adversarial Training with Large Speech Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.07691/) (2023)
- [VALL-E 2: Neural Codec Language Models are Human Parity Zero-Shot Text to Speech Synthesizers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.05370/) (2024)
- [Deepfake Detection by Human Crowds, Machines, and Machine-informed Crowds](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.06496/) (2021)
- [MLAAD: The Multi-Language Audio Anti-Spoofing Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.09512/) (2024)
- [ASVspoof 5: Design, Collection and Validation of Resources for Spoofing, Deepfake, and Adversarial Attack Detection Using Crowdsourced Speech](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.08857/) (2025)
- [Warning: Humans Cannot Reliably Detect Speech Deepfakes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.07829/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.