"Speech verification" redirects here; not to be confused with speaker verification.
Automatic pronunciation assessment uses computer speech recognition to determine how accurately speech has been pronounced,[1][2] instead of relying on a human instructor or proctor.[3] It is also called speech verification, pronunciation evaluation, and pronunciation scoring.[4] This technology is used to grade speech quality, for computer-aided pronunciation teaching (CAPT) in computer-assisted language learning (CALL), for speaking skill remediation, and for accent reduction.[4]
Pronunciation assessment is different than dictation or automatic transcription — instead of determining unknown speech, it verifies learners' pronunciation of known word(s), often from prior transcription of the same utterance, ideally scoring the intelligibility of the learners' speech.[5][6] Sometimes pronunciation assessment evaluates the prosody of the learners' speech, such as intonation, pitch, tempo, rhythm, and syllable and word stress, although those are usually not essential for being understood in most languages.[7] Pronunciation assessment is also used in reading tutoring, for example in products from Google,[8]Microsoft,[9][10] and Amira Learning.[11] Automatic pronunciation assessment can also be used to help diagnose and treat speech disorders such as apraxia.[12]
In 2022, researchers found that some newer speech-to-text systems, based on end-to-end reinforcement learning to map audio signals directly into words, produce word and phrase confidence scores (from 10-25ms audio frame logit aggregation) closely correlated with genuine listener intelligibility.[28] In 2023, others were able to assess intelligibility using dynamic time warping distance measures from Wav2Vec2 representation of good speech.[29][30] Further work through 2025 has focused specifically on measuring intelligibility.[31][32]
A 2025 study of 42 pronunciation and speech coaching apps (32 mobile and 10 web) found that none offered intelligibility assessment. Instead, most provided only segmental and accent-focused scoring. About two-thirds of the apps provided some form of specific pronunciation feedback, usually with phonetic transcriptions, but accompanied by visual cues (such as animations of the vocal tract or the lips and tongue from the front) in only about 5% of the apps. Less than a third provided feedback on learner perception of exemplar speech.[33]
Evaluation
Although there are as yet no industry-standard benchmarks for evaluating pronunciation assessment accuracy, researchers occasionally release evaluation speech corpuses for others to use for improving assessment quality.[34][35][36][37] Such evaluation databases often emphasize formally unaccented pronunciation to the exclusion of genuine intelligibility evident from blinded listener transcriptions.[6] As of mid-2025, state of the art approaches for automatically transcribing phonemes typically achieve an error rate of about 10% from known good speech.[38][39][40][41]
Ethical issues in pronunciation assessment are present in both human and automatic methods. Authentic validity, fairness, and mitigating bias in evaluation are all crucial. Diverse speech data should be included in automatic pronunciation assessment models. Combining human judgments, especially listener transcriptions, with automated feedback can improve accuracy and fairness.[42]
Second language learners benefit substantially from their use of common speech regognition systems for dictation, virtual assistants, and AI chatbots.[43] In such systems, users naturally try to correct their own errors evident in speech recognition results that they notice. Such use improves their grammar and vocabulary development along with their pronunciation skills. The extent to which explicit pronunciation assessment and remediation approaches improve on such self-directed interactions remains an open question.[43]
Recent developments
During 2021-22, a smartphone-based CAPT system was used to sense articulation through both audible and inaudible signals, providing feedback at the phoneme level.[44][45]
In 2024, audio multimodal large language models were first described as assessing pronunciation.[52] That work has been carried forward by other researchers in 2025 who report positive results.[53][54] Subsequently, researchers demonstrated pronunciation scoring by providing a language model with textual descriptions of speech, including the speech-to-text transcript, phoneme sequences, pauses, and phoneme sequence matching; this approach can achieve performance similar to multimodal LLMs that analyze raw audio while avoiding their higher computational cost.[55]
In 2025, the Duolingo English Test authors published a description of their pronunciation assessment method, purportedly built to measure intelligibility rather than accent imitation.[56] While achieving a correlation of 0.82 with expert human ratings, very close to inter-rater agreement and outperforming alternative methods, the method is nonetheless based on experts' scores along the six-point CEFR common reference levels scale, instead of actual blinded listener transcriptions.[56]
Further promising work in 2025 includes assessment feedback aligning learner speech to synthetic utterances using interpretable features, identifying continuous spans of words for remediation feedback;[57] synthesizing corrected speech matching learners' self-perceived voices, which they prefer and imitate more accurately as corrections;[58] and streaming such interactions.[59]
^El Kheir, Yassine; et al. (October 2023), Automatic Pronunciation Assessment — A Review, Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, arXiv:2310.13974, S2CID264426545
^ abLoukina, Anastassia; et al. (September 2015). Pronunciation accuracy and intelligibility of non-native speech. Interspeech 2015. Dresden, Germany: ISCA. pp. 1917–1921. only 16% of the variability in word-level intelligibility can be explained by the presence of obvious mispronunciations.
^ abO’Brien, Mary Grantham; et al. (December 2018). "Directions for the future of technology in pronunciation research and teaching". Journal of Second Language Pronunciation. 4 (2): 182–207. doi:10.1075/jslp.17001.obr. hdl:2066/199273. ISSN2215-1931. S2CID86440885. pronunciation researchers are primarily interested in improving L2 learners' intelligibility and comprehensibility, but they have not yet collected sufficient amounts of representative and reliable data (speech recordings with corresponding annotations and judgments) indicating which errors affect these speech dimensions and which do not. These data are essential to train ASR algorithms to assess L2 learners' intelligibility.
^Bernstein, Jared; et al. (November 1990), "Automatic Evaluation and Training in English Pronunciation", First International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP 90), Kobe, Japan: International Speech Communication Association, pp. 1185–1188, retrieved 11 February 2023, listeners differ considerably in their ability to predict unintelligible words.... Thus, it seems the quality rating is a more desirable... automatic-grading score. (Section 2.2.2.)
^Hiroshi, Kibishi; Nakagawa, Seiichi (August 2011). New feature parameters for pronunciation evaluation in English presentations at international conferences. Interspeech 2011. Florence, Italy: ISCA. pp. 1149–1152. Retrieved 11 February 2023. we investigated the relationship between pronunciation score / intelligibility and various acoustic measures, and then combined these measures.... As far as we know, the automatic estimation of intelligibility has not yet been studied.
^Bonk, Bill (August 2020). "New innovations in assessment: Versant's Intelligibility Index score". Resources for English Language Learners and Teachers. Pearson English. Archived from the original on 2023-01-27. Retrieved 11 February 2023. you don't need a perfect accent, grammar, or vocabulary to be understandable. In reality, you just need to be understandable with little effort by listeners.
^Gao, Yuan; et al. (May 2018). "Spoken English Intelligibility Remediation with PocketSphinx Alignment and Feature Extraction Improves Substantially over the State of the Art". 2nd IEEE Advanced Information Management, Communication, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (IMCEC 2018). pp. 924–927. arXiv:1709.01713. doi:10.1109/IMCEC.2018.8469649. ISBN978-1-5386-1803-5. S2CID31125681.
^Alnafisah, Mutleb (September 2022), "Technology Review: Speechace", Proceedings of the 12th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference (Virtual PSLLT), no. 40, vol. 12, St. Catharines, Ontario: Iowa State University Digital Press, ISSN2380-9566, retrieved 14 February 2023
^E.g., CMUDICT, "The CMU Pronouncing Dictionary". www.speech.cs.cmu.edu. Retrieved 15 February 2023. Compare "four" given as "F AO R" with the vowel AO as in "caught," to "row" given as "R OW" with the vowel OW as in "oat." This mistake is due to the "horse–hoarse merger," often called the "north–force merger."
^Menzel, Wolfgang; et al. (May 2000). The ISLE Corpus of Non-Native Spoken English. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’00). Athens, Greece: European Language Resources Association. Retrieved 13 August 2025.
^Yeo, Eunjung (October 2022). "wav2vec2-large-english-TIMIT-phoneme_v3". huggingface.co. Seoul National University Spoken Language Processing Lab. Retrieved 19 August 2025.
^Wu, Peter; et al. (14 February 2023), "Speaker-Independent Acoustic-to-Articulatory Speech Inversion", arXiv:2302.06774 [eess.AS]
^Cho, Cheol Jun; et al. (January 2024). "Self-Supervised Models of Speech Infer Universal Articulatory Kinematics". arXiv:2310.10788 [eess.AS].
^Mallela, Jhansi; Aluru, Sai Harshitha; Yarra, Chiranjeevi (February 2024). Exploring the Use of Self-Supervised Representations for Automatic Syllable Stress Detection. National Conference on Communications. Chennai, India. pp. 1–6. doi:10.1109/NCC60321.2024.10486028.
^Fu, Kaiqi; et al. (July 2024). "Pronunciation Assessment with Multi-modal Large Language Models". arXiv:2407.09209 [cs.CL]. Note that Speak.com produced an earlier commercial system that they had not described in technical detail.
^Ma, Rao; et al. (May 2025). "Assessment of L2 Oral Proficiency using Speech Large Language Models". arXiv:2505.21148 [cs.CL].