Forensic speaker recognition at the beginning of the twenty-first century - An overview and a demonstration

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 49-71

  Rose, Phil ^a  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BAYES THEOREM; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; OFFENDER; PHONETICS; PROBABILITY; REVIEW; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH ANALYSIS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH DISORDER;

EID: 33745224352     PISSN: 00450618     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00450610509410616     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Aitken CGG: Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists. Wiley, Chichester, 1995.
2. Aitken CGG, Lucy D: Evaluation of trace evidence in the form of multivariate data. Applied Statistics, 53/4: 109-122, 2004.
3. Aitken CGG, Stoney DA: The Use of Statistics in Forensic Science. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, 1991.
4. Aitken CGG, Taroni F: Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists. [2nd ed. of Aitken 1995]. Wiley, Chichester, 2004.
5. Alderman T: The Use of Australian-English Vowel Formant Data Sets in Forensic Speaker Identification. In Cassidy S. editor. Proc. 10th Australian Intl. Conf. on Speech Science and Technology (PANZE workshop): 177-182, 2004a.
6. Alderman T: The Bernard Data Set as a Reference Distribution for Bayesian Likelihood-Ratio-based Forensic Speaker Identification using Formants. In Cassidy S. editor. Proc. 10th Australian Intl. Conf. on Speech Science and Technology: 510-515, 2004b.
7. Alderman T: Forensic Speaker Identification: A Likelihood Ratio-based Approach Using Vowel Formants. LINCOM Studies in Phonetics 01, Lincom Europa, Munich. 2005.
8. Bernard JRL: Some measurements of some sounds of Australian English. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Sydney, 1967.
9. Boë L-J: Forensic voice identification in France. Speech Communication, 31: 205-224, 2000.
10. Breeders APA: Some observations on the use of probability scales in forensic identification. Forensic Linguistics: 6/2: 228-41, 1999.
11. Breeders APA: Forensic Speech and Audio Analysis Forensic Linguistics - A Review: 2001 to 2004. 14th International Forensic Science Symposium, Lyon. http://www.interpol.int/Public/Forensic/IFSS/meeting14/ReviewPapers.pdf 2004.
12. Champod C, Evett I: Commentary on Breeders (1999). Forensic Linguistics, 7/2: 238-43, 2000
13. Daubert. Daubert vs Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 113 S Ct 2786, 1993.
14. Evett IW: Towards a uniform framework for reporting opinions in forensic science casework. Science & Justice, 38/3: 198-202, 1998.
15. Gonzalez-Rodriguez J, Drygajlo A, Ramos-Castro D, Garcia-Gomar M, Ortega-Garcia J: Robust Estimation, interpretation and assessment of likelihood ratios in forensic speaker recognition. Computer Speech and Language Special Issue, 20(2-3): 331-355,2006.
16. Good P: Applying Statistics in the Courtroom - A New Approach for Attorneys and Expert Witnesses. Chapman & Hall/CRC, London, 2001.
17. Haigh J: Review of Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists. Significance, March: 40, 2005.
18. Hand DJ, Yu Keming: Idiot's Bayes - Not So Stupid After All? International Statistical Review, 69/3: 385-398, 2001.
19. Hodgson D: A Lawyer looks at Bayes' Theorem. The Australian Law Journal, 76: 109 - 118, 2002.
20. Kinoshita Y: Testing Realistic Forensic Speaker Identification in Japanese: A Likelihood Ratio Based Approach Using Formants. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, the Australian National University, 2001.
21. Leeuwen DA, Bouten JS: Results of the 2003 NFI-TNO Forensic Speaker Recognition Evaluation. In: In Ortega-García J et al. editors: 81-82, 2004.
22. Lindley DV: Probability. In Aitken & Stoney, editors: 27-50, 1991.
23. Meuwly D, El-Maliki M, Drygajlo A: Forensic Speaker Recognition using Gaussian Mixture Models and a Bayesian Framework. COST-250 Workshop, Ankara, 1998.
24. Nolan F. The Phonetic Bases of Speaker Recognition. CUP, Cambridge, 1983.
25. Ortega-García J, González-Rodríguez J, Bimbot F, Bonastre J-F, Campbell J, Magrin-Chagnolleau I, Mason J, Peres R, Reynolds D, editors: Proc. Odyssey-04, The Speaker and Language Recognition Workshop, 2004.
26. R v Doheny. Court of Appeal Criminal Division. No. 95/5297/Y2, 1996.
27. Robertson B, Vignaux GA: Interpreting Evidence. Wiley, Chichester, 1995.
28. Rose P: Forensic Speaker Identification. Taylor and Francis, London & New York, 2002.
29. Rose P: The Technical Comparison of Forensic Voice Samples. Issue 99, Expert Evidence. Freckelton I, Selby H, series editors. Thomson Lawbook Company, Sydney, 2003.
30. Rose P: Identifying Criminals by their Voice - the Emerging Applied Discipline of Forensic Phonetics. Australian Language Matters, 5/2: 6-7, 1997.
31. Rose P: Technical Forensic Speaker Recognition: Evaluation, Types and Testing of Evidence. Computer Speech and Language Special Issue, 20(2-3): 159-191, 2006
32. Rose P, Lucy D, Osanai T. Linguistic-acoustic Forensic Speaker Identification with Likelihood Ratios from a Multivariate Hierarchial Random Effects Model: A "Non-Idiot's Bayes" Approach. In: Cassidy S. editor. Proc. 10th Australian Intl. Conf. on Speech Science and Technology. Sydney: Australian Speech Science & Technology Association, 492-497: 2004
33. Rose P, Osanai T, Kinoshita Y. Strength of Forensic Speaker Identification Evidence - Multispeaker formant and cepstrum based segmental discrimination with a Bayesian Likelihood ratio as threshold. Speech Language and the Law, 10/2: 179-202, 2003.
34. Rose P, Duncan S: Naive auditory identification and discrimination of similar voices by familiar listeners. Forensic Linguistics 2/1: 1-17, 1995
35. Sprent P: Statistics in Action. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977.