Skip to content
← Back to explorer

"This Wasn't Made for Me": Recentering User Experience and Emotional Impact in the Evaluation of ASR Bias

Siyu Liang, Alicia Beckford Wassink · Apr 22, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

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.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"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?"

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"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?"

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"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?"

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"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?"

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy, Jailbreak success rate

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"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."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Coding

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

accuracyjailbreak success rate

Research Brief

Metadata summary

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?

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • 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.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Accuracy

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • 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…
  • 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…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • 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…

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy, jailbreak success rate

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Create Account & Post a Job
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
Learn About Managed Service
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.
Join Now