A demonstration of the application of the new paradigm for the evaluation of forensic evidence under conditions reflecting those of a real forensic-voice-comparison case

Science and Justice

Volumn 56, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 42-57

  Enzinger, Ewald ^a,b,c   Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart ^a,d   Ochoa, Felipe ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b CSIRO   (Australia)

^c ERICH SCHMID INSTITUTE OF MATERIALS SCIENCE   (Austria)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Forensic voice comparison; Likelihood ratio; Mismatch compensation; Reliability; Validity

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC ANALYSIS; AIR CONDITIONING; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; FORENSIC MEDICINE; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; RELIABILITY; SAMPLING; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VALIDITY; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HUMAN; PROCEDURES; SIGNAL PROCESSING; STATISTICAL MODEL; VOICE;

FORENSIC SCIENCES; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; VOICE; VOICE QUALITY;

EID: 84936984760     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: 18764452     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2015.06.005     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Saks M.J., Koehler J.J. The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science 2005, 309:892-895. 10.1126/science.1111565.
2. U.S.National Research Council (NRC) Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward 2009, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, (URL: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12589).
3. Evett I.W., Aitken C.G.G., Berger C.E.H., Buckleton J.S., Champod C., Curran J.M., Dawid A.P., Gill P., González-Rodríguez J., Jackson G., Kloosterman A., Lovelock T., Lucy D., Margot P., McKenna L., Meuwly D., Neumann C., NicDaéid N., Nordgaard A., Puch-Solis R., Rasmusson B., Redmayne M., Roberts P., Robertson B., Roux C., Sjerps M.J., Taroni F., Tjin-A-Tsoi T., Vignaux G.A., Willis S.M., Zadora G. Expressing evaluative opinions: a position statement. Sci. Justice 2011, 51:1-2. 10.1016/j.scijus.2011.01.002.
4. Berger C.E.H., Buckleton J., Champod C., Evett I.W., Jackson G. Evidence evaluation: a response to the Court of Appeal judgment in R v T. Sci. Justice 2011, 51:43-49. 10.1016/j.scijus.2011.03.005.
5. Fenton N.E. Improve statistics in court. Nature 2011, 479:36-37. 10.1038/479036a.
6. Redmayne M., Roberts P., Aitken C.G.G., Jackson G. Forensic science evidence in question. Crim. Law Rev. 2011, 5:347-356.
7. Robertson B., Vignaux G.A., Berger C.E.H. Extending the confusion about Bayes. Mod. Law Rev. 2011, 74:444-455.
8. Biedermann A., Taroni F., Champod C. How to assign a likelihood ratio in a footwear mark case: an analysis and discussion in the light of R v T. Law Prob. Risk 2012, 11:259-277. 10.1093/lpr/mgs015.
9. Morrison G.S. The likelihood-ratio framework and forensic evidence in court: a response to R v T. Int. J. Evid. Proof 2012, 16:1-29. 10.1350/ijep.2012.16.1.390.
10. Nordgaard A., Rasmusson B. The likelihood ratio as value of evidence: more than a question of numbers. Law Prob. Risk 2012, 11:303-315. 10.1093/lpr/mgs019.
11. Sjerps M.J., Berger C.E.H. How clear is transparent? Reporting expert reasoning in legal cases. Law Prob. Risk 2012, 11:317-329. 10.1093/lpr/mgs017.
12. Thompson W.C. Bad cases make bad law: reactions to R v T. Law Prob. Risk 2012, 11:347-359. 10.1093/lpr/mgs020.
13. Curran J.M. Is forensic science the last bastion of resistance against statistics?. Sci. Justice 2013, 53:251-252. 10.1016/j.scijus.2013.07.001.
14. Association of Forensic Science Providers Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion. Sci. Justice 2009, 49:161-164. 10.1016/j.scijus.2009.07.004.
15. Expert working group on human factors in latent print analysis, latent print examination and human factors: improving the practice through a systems approach. Technical Report, NIST 2012, US Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, MD, URL: http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=910745.
16. Morrison G.S., Evett I.W., Willis S.M., Champod C., Grigoras C., Lindh J., Fenton N., Hepler A., Berger C.E.H., Buckleton J.S., Thompson W.C., González-Rodríguez J., Neumann C., Curran J.M., Zhang C., Aitken C.G.G., Ramos D., Lucena-Molina J.J., Jackson G., Meuwly D., Robertson B., Vignaux G.A. Response to Draft Australian Standard: DR AS 5388.3 Forensic Analysis - Part 3 - Interpretation 2012, (URL: http://forensic-evaluation.net/australian-standards/#Morrison_et_al_2012).
17. Willis S.M., McKenna L., McDermott S., O'Donell G., Barrett A., Rasmusson B., Nordgaard A., Berger C.E.H., Sjerps M.J., Lucena-Molina J., Zadora G., Aitken C.C.G., Lunt L., Champod C., Biedermann A., Hicks T.N., Taroni F. ENFSI guideline for evaluative reporting in forensic science. Technical Report 2015, ENFSI, (URL: http://www.unil.ch/esc/files/live/sites/esc/files/Fichiers%202015/ENFSI%20Guideline%20Evaluative%20Reporting).
18. Morrison G.S. Forensic voice comparison and the paradigm shift. Sci. Justice 2009, 49:298-308. 10.1016/j.scijus.2009.09.002.
19. Morrison G.S. Forensic voice comparison. Expert Evidence 2010, Thomson Reuters, Sydney, Australia. I. Freckelton, H. Selby (Eds.).
20. Morrison G.S. Distinguishing between forensic science and forensic pseudoscience: testing of validity and reliability, and approaches to forensic voice comparison. Sci. Justice 2014, 54:245-256. 10.1016/j.scijus.2013.07.004.
21. Morrison G.S., Stoel R.D. Forensic strength of evidence statements should preferably be likelihood ratios calculated using relevant data, quantitative measurements, and statistical models - a response to Lennard (2013) Fingerprint identification: how far have we come?. Aust. J. Forensic Sci. 2014, 46:282-292. 10.1080/00450618.2013.833648.
22. Morrison G.S., Ochoa F., Thiruvaran T. Database selection for forensic voice comparison. Proc. Odyssey 2012: The Speaker and Language Recognition Workshop, Singapore 2012.
23. Morrison G.S. Measuring the validity and reliability of forensic likelihood-ratio systems. Sci. Justice 2011, 51:91-98. 10.1016/j.scijus.2011.03.002.
24. Curran J.M., Champod C., Hicks T.N., Buckleton J.S. Forensic Interpretation of Glass Evidence 2000, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
25. Kerkhoff W., Stoel R.D., Mattijssen E.J.A.T., Hermsen R. The likelihood ratio approach in cartridge case and bullet comparison. J. Assoc. Firearm Toolmark Examiners 2013, 45:284-290.
26. Rose P. Forensic Speaker Identification 2002, Taylor & Francis, London.
27. Hancock S., Morgan-Smith R., Buckleton J. The interpretation of shoeprint comparison class correspondences. Sci. Justice 2012, 52:243-248. 10.1016/j.scijus.2012.06.002.
28. Morrison G.S., Enzinger E. Forensic speech science - review: 2010-2013. Proceedings of the 17th International Forensic Science Managers' Symposium 2013, 616-623. INTERPOL, Lyon, France, 629-635. N. NicDaéid (Ed.).
29. Gold E., French P. International practices in forensic speaker comparison. Int. J. Speech Lang. Law 2011, 18:293-307. 10.1558/ijsll.v18i2.293.
30. Enzinger E., Morrison G.S. Mismatched distances from speakers to telephone in a forensic-voice-comparison case. Speech Comm. 2015, 70:28-41. 10.1016/j.specom.2015.03.001.
31. Zhang C., Morrison G.S., Enzinger E., Ochoa F. Effects of telephone transmission on the performance of formant-trajectory-based forensic voice comparison - female voices. Speech Comm. 2013, 55:796-813. 10.1016/j.specom.2013.01.011.
32. Kaye D.H. Logical relevance: problems with the reference population and DNA mixtures in People v. Pizarro. Law Prob. Risk 2004, 3:211-220. 10.1093/lawprj/3.3-4.211.
33. Evett I.W., Weir B.S. Interpreting DNA Evidence: Statistical Genetics for Forensic Scientists 1998, Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
34. Morrison G.S., Zhang C., Enzinger E., Ochoa F., Bleach D., Johnson M., Folkes B.K., De Souza S., Cummins N., Chow D. Forensic Database of Voice Recordings of 500+ Australian English speakers URL:. http://databases.forensic-voice-comparison.net/.
35. Morrison G.S., Rose P., Zhang C. Protocol for the collection of databases of recordings for forensic-voice-comparison research and practice. Aust. J. Forensic Sci. 2012, 44:155-167. 10.1080/00450618.2011.630412.
36. Enzinger E. Database selection software for forensic voice comparison (Release 2015-05-25) 2015, (URL: http://ewaldenzinger.entn.at/dbselect/).
37. International Telecommunication Union (ITU) ITU-T Recommendation G.723.1 (05/06): Dual Rate Speech Coder for Multimedia Communications Transmitting at 5.3 and 6.3 kbit/s URL:. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.723.1-200605-I/en.
38. International Telecommunication Union ITU ITU-T Recommendation G.151 (11/88): General Performance Objectives Applicable to All Modern International Circuits and National Extension Circuits URL:. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.151-198811-W/en.
39. Brookes M. VOICEBOX: Speech Processing Toolbox for MATLAB 1998, Dept. of Electrical & Electronic Eng., Imperial College, London, UK, (URL: http://www.ee.ic.ac.uk/hp/staff/dmb/voicebox/voicebox.html).
40. International Telecommunication Union (ITU) ITU-T Recommendation G.711 (11/88): Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) of Voice Frequencies URL:. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.711-198811-I/en.
41. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO/IEC International Standard 11172-3:1993 - Information Technology - Coding of Moving Pictures and Associated Audio for Digital Storage Media at up to About 1.5 Mbit/s - Part 3: Audio 1993.
42. Campbell D.R., Palomäki K.J., Brown G.J. A Matlab simulation of "shoebox" room acoustics for use in research and teaching. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2005, 9:48-51.
43. Farina A. Impulse response measurements. Proc. 23rd Nordic Sound Symposium, Bolkesjø (Norway) 2007, 27-30. (URL: http://www.angelofarina.it/Public/Papers/238-NordicSound2007.pdf).
44. Ellis D.P.W. PLP and RASTA (and MFCC, and inversion) in Matlab URL:. http://www.ee.columbia.edu/dpwe/resources/matlab/rastamat.
45. Furui S. Speaker-independent isolated word recognition using dynamic features of speech spectrum. IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process. 1986, 34:52-59. 10.1109/TASSP.1986.1164788.
46. Reynolds D.A., Quatieri T.F., Dunn R.B. Speaker verification using adapted Gaussian mixture models. Digital Signal Process. 2000, 10:19-41. 10.1006/dspr.1999.0361.
47. Dempster A.P., Laird N.M., Rubin D.B. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J. R. Soc. B 1977, 39:1-38. (URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2984875).
48. Gauvain J.-L., Lee C.-H. Maximum a posteriori estimation for multivariate Gaussian mixture observations of Markov chains. IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 1994, 2:291-298. 10.1109/89.279278.
49. Young S. The HTK hidden Markov model toolkit: design and philosophy. Technical Report 1993, Department of Engineering, Cambridge University, U.K.
50. Ramos-Castro D., González-Rodríguez J., Ortega-Garcia J. Likelihood ratio calibration in a transparent and testable forensic speaker recognition framework. Proc. IEEE Odyssey 2006: The Speaker and Language Recognition Workshop 2006, 1-8. 10.1109/ODYSSEY.2006.248088.
51. van Leeuwen D.A., Brümmer N. An introduction to application-independent evaluation of speaker recognition systems. Speaker Classification I. Fundamentals, Features, and Methods 2007, 330-353. Springer. 10.1007/978-3-540-74200-5_19. C. Müller (Ed.).
52. Morrison G.S. Tutorial on logistic-regression calibration and fusion: converting a score to a likelihood ratio. Aust. J. Forensic Sci. 2013, 45:173-197. 10.1080/00450618.2012.733025.
53. Morrison G.S. Robust Version of train_llr_fusion.m from Niko Brümmer's FoCaL Toolbox (Release 2009-07-02) URL:. http://geoff-morrison.net/#TrainFus.
54. Pelecanos J., Sridharan S. Feature warping for robust speaker verification. Proc. Odyssey 2001: The Speaker Recognition Workshop, Crete, Greece 2001, 213-218.
55. Mak M.-W., Yiu K.-K., Kung S.-Y. Probabilistic feature-based transformation for speaker verification over telephone networks. Neurocomputing 2007, 71:137-146. 10.1016/j.neucom.2007.08.003.
56. Reynolds D.A. Channel robust speaker verification via feature mapping. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., Hong Kong 2003, 53-56. 10.1109/ICASSP.2003.1202292.
57. Enzinger E., Morrison G.S. The importance of using between-session test data in evaluating the performance of forensic-voice-comparison systems. Proc. SST'12, Sydney, Australia 2012, 137-140.
58. Campbell W.M., Sturim D.E., Reynolds D.A., Solomonoff A. SVM based speaker verification using a GMM supervector kernel and NAP variability compensation. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., Toulouse, France 2006, 97-100. 10.1109/ICASSP.2006.1659966.
59. Solomonoff A., Campbell W., Boardman I. Advances in channel compensation for SVM speaker recognition. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process 2005, vol. 1:629-632. 10.1109/ICASSP.2005.1415192.
60. Vesnicer B., Mihelič F. The likelihood ratio decision criterion for nuisance attribute projection in GMM speaker verification. EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process. 2008, 2008:786431. 10.1155/2008/786431.
61. Kenny P., Boulianne G., Ouellet P., Dumouchel P. Speaker and session variability in GMM-based speaker verification. IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process. 2007, 15:1448-1460. 10.1109/TASL.2007.894527.
62. Burget L., Matějka P., Schwarz P., Glembek O., Černocký J. Analysis of feature extraction and channel compensation in a GMM speaker recognition system. IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process. 2007, 15:1979-1986. 10.1109/TASL.2007.902499.
63. Campbell W.M., Sturim D.E., Torres-Carrasquillo P., Reynolds D.A. A comparison of subspace feature-domain methods for language recognition. Proc. Interspeech incorporating SST'08, Brisbane, Australia 2008, 309-312.
64. James G., Witten D., Hastie T., Tibshirani R. An Introduction to Statistical Learning 2013, Springer.
65. Royall R. On the probability of observing misleading statistical evidence. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 2000, 95:760-768. 10.1080/01621459.2000.10474264.
66. U.S.Department of Justice (DOJ) NIJ CR-100x.00 Criminal Justice Interview Room Recording System Standard (Draft 2012-11-16) 2012.
67. U.S.Department of Justice (DOJ) NIJ Guide-xxxx.00 Criminal Justice Interview Room Recording System Selection and Application Guide (Draft 2012-11-14) 2012.