International practices in forensic speaker comparison

International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 293-307

  Gold, Erica ^a   French, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Conclusion frameworks; Features; Forensic speaker comparison; International practices; Methodology; Survey

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864833292     PISSN: 17488885     EISSN: 17488893     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1558/ijsll.v18i2.293     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Aristotle. Metaphysica 10f-1045a.
2. Baldwin, J. and French, J. P. (1990) Forensic Phonetics. London: Pinter.
3. Broeders, A. P. A. (2001) Forensic speech and audio analysis. Forensic linguistics. 1998 to 2001. A review. In Proceedings of 13th INTERPOL Forensic Sciences Symposium. 16-19 October 2001. Lyon, France.
4. Champod, C., and Evett, I. W. (2000) Commentary on Broeders 1999. Forensic Linguistics 7(2): 238-243.
5. Drygajlo, A. (2007) Forensic automatic speaker recognition. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 24: 132-135. doi: 10.1109/MSP.2007.323278
6. French, J. P. (1994) An overview of forensic phonetics with particular reference to speaker identification. Forensic Linguistics 5(1): 58-68.
7. French, J. P. and Harrison, P. (2007) Position statement concerning use of impressionistic likelihood terms in forensic speaker comparison cases. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 14(1): 137-144.
8. French, J. P., Nolan, F., Foulkes, P., Harrison, P. and McDougall, K. (2010) The UK position statement on forensic speaker comparison: a rejoinder to Rose and Morrison. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 17(1): 143-152.
9. Greenberg, C. S., Martin, A., Brandschain, L., Campbell, J., Cieri, C., Doddington, G. and Godfrey, J. (2010) Human assisted speaker recognition. In SRE10, Proceedings of Odyssey 2010, Brno, Czech Republic, June-July 2010.
10. House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee (2009) Cross-border Co-operation between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland: Second Report of Session 2008-2009. London: The Stationery Office.
11. Jessen, M. (2008) Forensic phonetics. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(4): 671-711. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00066.x
12. Jessen, M., Köster, O. and Gfroerer, S. (2005) Influence of vocal effort on average and variability of fundamental frequency. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 12: 174-213. doi: 10.1558/sll.2005.12.2.174
13. Künzel, H. J. (1987) Sprechererkennung: Grundzuge forensischer Sprachverarbeitung. Heidelberg: Kriminalistik Verlag.
14. Ladd, D. R. (1996) Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Laver, J. (1980) The Phonetic Description of Voice Quality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Lindh, J. (2007) Fundamental frequency and the alternative baseline in forensic speaker identification. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the International Association for Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics (IAFPA) 2007. Plymouth, UK.
17. Morrison, G. (2009) Forensic voice comparison and the paradigm shift. Science and Justice 49: 298-308. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2009.09.002
18. Rose, P. and Morrison, G. (2009) A response to the UK Position Statement on forensic speaker comparison. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 16(2): 139-163.