Speech Recognition Technology

The category of SRT used by large institutions and clinics is back-end SRT. With this method, the actual speech-to-text conversion takes place after the speaker has dictated, rather than concurrently. The dictation is recorded in digital form at the time of dictation, and then the digital voice files are processed by a powerful computer running SRT software and converted to a draft text document. A human speech recognition editor must then listen to the voice file while proofreading the draft document because even the most sophisticated SRT applications are not nearly accurate enough to eliminate the need for human review.

Performing SRT editing successfully requires a somewhat more specialized skillset than that involved in traditional, manual transcription. There is a different eye/ear/brain coordination dynamic at work in SRT editing compared to transcribing, which often makes it more challenging to identify errors in an SRT-draft document. It is more common in SRT editing for the brain to be “tricked” into thinking that the eye has seen what the ear has heard, due to the lack of the tactile component of the fingers manipulating the keyboard to make the text characters appear on the screen. It is a common misconception that SRT editing is somehow easier than manual transcription or requires less knowledge and skill; this is most certainly not the case. It is true that the physical demands are somewhat decreased with SRT editing, as it does not require as much keyboarding, but the mental demands of SRT editing are greater, requiring more intense focus and concentration.

The methods and rates of compensation for SRT editors vary greatly, as is true for medical transcriptionists in general. Some employers pay an hourly rate, with or without benefits; others pay on production, by the line or character or some other unit of measure, again with or without benefits. Compensation for SRT editors working on production is often less per unit than for transcribing, with the assumption being that editing SRT is faster than manual transcription and therefore editors can process a greater number of lines, characters, etc., in the same amount of time. While this may be true to one degree or another, it is not unusual to find that the increase in productivity with SRT does not make up for the lower compensation rate, with the end result being that editing pays less than manual transcription. This is clearly inequitable, given that SRT editing is in some ways even more demanding than manual transcription.

MTs should evaluate SRT editing positions very carefully before signing a long-term contract, since it may not be known until after the fact whether or not the rate of compensation for an editing position is adequate. Again, for an editing position that pays on production, the rate per unit itself is not the key factor; it is the level of productivity you achieve that will determine your actual compensation for a given period of time. If the compensation for SRT editing is half the rate for manual transcription, an MT must be able to process at least twice as many lines, characters, etc., in a given period of time in order to receive an equivalent compensation. Whether or not this is a realistic goal depends a great deal upon the accuracy of the speech recognition application and the user-friendliness of the transcription software and whether or not it allows the use of macros, text expanders and spell checkers, etc.