This paper presents a comparative evaluation of four commercial ASR systems which are evaluated according to the post-editing effort required to reach "publishable" quality and according to the number of errors they produce. For the error annotation task, an original error typology for transcription errors is proposed. This study also seeks to examine whether there is a difference in the performance of these systems between native and non-native English speakers. The experimental results suggest that among the four systems, Trint and Microsoft obtain the best scores. It is also observed that most systems perform noticeably better with native speakers and that all systems are most prone to fluency errors.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract