International practices in forensic speaker comparisons
second survey
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.38028Keywords:
forensic speaker comparison, methods, practices, preparation, automatic speaker recognition (asr) systems, conclusion frameworks, cognitive bias, reference populations, developmental trendsAbstract
A survey relating to current practices in forensic speaker comparison testing was recently undertaken of 39 laboratories and individual practitioners across 23 countries. Questions were organised around a number of themes, including the preliminary assessment and preparation of case materials, the checking of analysts' work, frameworks used for the expression of conclusions, the use of automatic speaker recognition systems, the use of reference populations, and awareness of cognitive bias. Developmental trends in this area of forensic speech science are established by comparing responses to the present survey with those to the authors' earlier survey published in 2011.
References
Cambier-Langeveld, T. (2007) Current methods in forensic speaker identification: results of a collaborative exercise. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 14(2): 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v14i2.223
Champod, C. and Evett, I. W. (2000) Commentary on: A.P.A. Broeders (1999) Some observations on the use of probability scales in forensic identification. Forensic Linguistics 7(2): 239–243. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v7i2.239
Dror, I. E. (2011) The paradox of human expertise: why experts get it wrong. In N. Kapur (ed.) The Paradoxical Brain 177–188. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https:// doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511978098.011
Dror, I. E. (2014) Practical solutions to cognitive and human factor challenges in forensic science. Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal 4(3–4): 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/19409044.2014.901437
Dror, I. E. and Cole, S. A. (2010) The vision in ‘blind’ justice: expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17(2): 161–167. https://doi.org/10.3758/pbr.17.2.161
Forensic Science Regulator (2016) Codes of Practice and Conduct: Appendix for Speech and Audio Forensic Services. FSR-C-134, 1.
Forensic Science Regulator (2017) Codes of Practice and Conduct for Forensic Science Providers and Practitioners in the Criminal Justice System, 4.
Fraser, Helen (2018) ‘Assisting’ listeners to hear words that aren’t there: dangers in using police transcripts of indistinct covert recordings. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 50(2): 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2017.1340522
French, P. (2017) A developmental history of forensic speaker comparison in the UK. English Phonetics 21: 255–270.
French, P. and Fraser, H. (2018) Why ‘ad hoc experts’ should not provide transcripts of indistinct forensic audio, and a proposal for a better approach. Criminal Law Journal 42(5): 298–302.
French, P., Harrison, P., Hughes, V., Watt, D., Llamas, C. and Braun, A. (2018) Comparing apples with apples, apples with oranges and apples with apples and oranges: the effects of (mis)matching reference population accents in ASR speaker comparisons. Presentation at the 27th Annual Conference of the International Association of Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics, University of Huddersfield, UK, 29 July–1 August 2018.
French, P., Harrison, P., Kirchhübel, C., Rhodes, R. and Wormald, J. (2017) From receipt of recordings to dispatch of report: opening the blinds on laboratory practices. Presentation at the 26th Annual Conference of the International Association of Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics, Split, Croatia, 9–12 July 2017.
Gold, E. (2012) Articulation rate as a discriminant in forensic speaker comparisons. UNSW Forensic Speech Science Conference. Sydney, Australia, 3 December 2012.
Gold, E. (2014) Calculating likelihood ratios for forensic speaker comparisons using phonetic and linguistic parameters. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of York.
Gold, E. (2018) Articulation rate as a speaker discriminant in British English. Proceedings of Interspeech, Hyderabad, India, 2–6 September 2018: 1828–1832. https://doi. org/10.21437/interspeech.2018-1384
Gold, E. and French, P (2011) International practices in forensic speaker comparison. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 18(2): 293–307. https://doi. org/10.1558/ijsll.v18i2.293
Gold, E., Ross, S., Earnshaw, K. (2018). The ‘West Yorkshire Regional English Database’: investigations into the generalizability of reference populations for forensic speaker comparison casework. Proceedings of Interspeech, Hyderabad, India, 2–6 September 2018: 2748–2752. https://doi.org/10.21437/interspeech.2018-65
Gonçalves, C. S. (2014) Taxa de elocução e de articulação em corpus forense do português brasileiro (Rate of speech and articulation in a forensic corpus of Brazilian Portuguese). Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito 1(2): 114–116.
Gonçalves, C. S. (2017) Taxa de elocução e taxa de articulação em corpus utilizado na perícia de Comparação de Locutores (Rate of speech and rate of articulation in a corpus used in the expert Comparison of Speakers). Letras de Hoje 52(1): 15–25. https://doi.org/10.15448/1984-7726.2017.1.25540
Hudson, T., de Jong, G., McDougall, K., Harrison P. and Nolan F. (2007) F0 statistics for 100 young male speakers of standard Southern British English. In J. Trouvain and W. Barry (eds.) Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken, 6–10 August 2007: 1809–1812.
Kelly, F. (2018) The future of the field: automatic speaker recognition. Presentation at the 27th Annual Conference of the International Association of Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics. Huddersfield, UK, 29 July–1 August.
Morrison, G. S. (2009) Forensic voice comparison and the paradigm shift. Science & Justice 49(4): 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2009.09.002
Morrison, G. S., Sahito, F. H., Jardine, G., Djokic, D., Clavet, S., Berghs, S. and Goemans Dorny, C. (2016) INTERPOL survey of the use of speaker identification by law enforcement agencies. Forensic Science International 263: 92–100. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.03.044
Nakhaeizadeh, S., Morgan, R. M., Rando, C. and Dror, I. E. (2018) Cascading bias of initial exposure to information at the crime scene to the subsequent evaluation of skeletal remains. Journal of Forensic Sciences 63(2): 403–411. https://doi. org/10.1111/1556-4029.13569
Rhodes, R. (2016) Cognitive bias in forensic speech science: risks and proposed safeguards. Presentation at the 25th Annual Conference of the International Association of Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics, York, UK, 24–27 July 2016.
Rose, P. and Morrison, G. S. (2009) A response to the UK Position Statement on forensic speaker comparison. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 16(1): 139–163. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v16i1.139
Ross, S., French, P. and Foulkes, P. (2016) UK practitioners’ estimates of the distribution of speech variants. Presentation at the 25th Annual Conference of the International Association of Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics, York, UK, 24–27 July 2016.
Saks, M. J. and Koehler, J. J. (2005) The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science 309: 892–895. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111565
Champod, C. and Evett, I. W. (2000) Commentary on: A.P.A. Broeders (1999) Some observations on the use of probability scales in forensic identification. Forensic Linguistics 7(2): 239–243. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v7i2.239
Dror, I. E. (2011) The paradox of human expertise: why experts get it wrong. In N. Kapur (ed.) The Paradoxical Brain 177–188. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https:// doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511978098.011
Dror, I. E. (2014) Practical solutions to cognitive and human factor challenges in forensic science. Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal 4(3–4): 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/19409044.2014.901437
Dror, I. E. and Cole, S. A. (2010) The vision in ‘blind’ justice: expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17(2): 161–167. https://doi.org/10.3758/pbr.17.2.161
Forensic Science Regulator (2016) Codes of Practice and Conduct: Appendix for Speech and Audio Forensic Services. FSR-C-134, 1.
Forensic Science Regulator (2017) Codes of Practice and Conduct for Forensic Science Providers and Practitioners in the Criminal Justice System, 4.
Fraser, Helen (2018) ‘Assisting’ listeners to hear words that aren’t there: dangers in using police transcripts of indistinct covert recordings. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 50(2): 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2017.1340522
French, P. (2017) A developmental history of forensic speaker comparison in the UK. English Phonetics 21: 255–270.
French, P. and Fraser, H. (2018) Why ‘ad hoc experts’ should not provide transcripts of indistinct forensic audio, and a proposal for a better approach. Criminal Law Journal 42(5): 298–302.
French, P., Harrison, P., Hughes, V., Watt, D., Llamas, C. and Braun, A. (2018) Comparing apples with apples, apples with oranges and apples with apples and oranges: the effects of (mis)matching reference population accents in ASR speaker comparisons. Presentation at the 27th Annual Conference of the International Association of Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics, University of Huddersfield, UK, 29 July–1 August 2018.
French, P., Harrison, P., Kirchhübel, C., Rhodes, R. and Wormald, J. (2017) From receipt of recordings to dispatch of report: opening the blinds on laboratory practices. Presentation at the 26th Annual Conference of the International Association of Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics, Split, Croatia, 9–12 July 2017.
Gold, E. (2012) Articulation rate as a discriminant in forensic speaker comparisons. UNSW Forensic Speech Science Conference. Sydney, Australia, 3 December 2012.
Gold, E. (2014) Calculating likelihood ratios for forensic speaker comparisons using phonetic and linguistic parameters. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of York.
Gold, E. (2018) Articulation rate as a speaker discriminant in British English. Proceedings of Interspeech, Hyderabad, India, 2–6 September 2018: 1828–1832. https://doi. org/10.21437/interspeech.2018-1384
Gold, E. and French, P (2011) International practices in forensic speaker comparison. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 18(2): 293–307. https://doi. org/10.1558/ijsll.v18i2.293
Gold, E., Ross, S., Earnshaw, K. (2018). The ‘West Yorkshire Regional English Database’: investigations into the generalizability of reference populations for forensic speaker comparison casework. Proceedings of Interspeech, Hyderabad, India, 2–6 September 2018: 2748–2752. https://doi.org/10.21437/interspeech.2018-65
Gonçalves, C. S. (2014) Taxa de elocução e de articulação em corpus forense do português brasileiro (Rate of speech and articulation in a forensic corpus of Brazilian Portuguese). Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito 1(2): 114–116.
Gonçalves, C. S. (2017) Taxa de elocução e taxa de articulação em corpus utilizado na perícia de Comparação de Locutores (Rate of speech and rate of articulation in a corpus used in the expert Comparison of Speakers). Letras de Hoje 52(1): 15–25. https://doi.org/10.15448/1984-7726.2017.1.25540
Hudson, T., de Jong, G., McDougall, K., Harrison P. and Nolan F. (2007) F0 statistics for 100 young male speakers of standard Southern British English. In J. Trouvain and W. Barry (eds.) Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken, 6–10 August 2007: 1809–1812.
Kelly, F. (2018) The future of the field: automatic speaker recognition. Presentation at the 27th Annual Conference of the International Association of Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics. Huddersfield, UK, 29 July–1 August.
Morrison, G. S. (2009) Forensic voice comparison and the paradigm shift. Science & Justice 49(4): 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2009.09.002
Morrison, G. S., Sahito, F. H., Jardine, G., Djokic, D., Clavet, S., Berghs, S. and Goemans Dorny, C. (2016) INTERPOL survey of the use of speaker identification by law enforcement agencies. Forensic Science International 263: 92–100. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.03.044
Nakhaeizadeh, S., Morgan, R. M., Rando, C. and Dror, I. E. (2018) Cascading bias of initial exposure to information at the crime scene to the subsequent evaluation of skeletal remains. Journal of Forensic Sciences 63(2): 403–411. https://doi. org/10.1111/1556-4029.13569
Rhodes, R. (2016) Cognitive bias in forensic speech science: risks and proposed safeguards. Presentation at the 25th Annual Conference of the International Association of Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics, York, UK, 24–27 July 2016.
Rose, P. and Morrison, G. S. (2009) A response to the UK Position Statement on forensic speaker comparison. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 16(1): 139–163. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v16i1.139
Ross, S., French, P. and Foulkes, P. (2016) UK practitioners’ estimates of the distribution of speech variants. Presentation at the 25th Annual Conference of the International Association of Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics, York, UK, 24–27 July 2016.
Saks, M. J. and Koehler, J. J. (2005) The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science 309: 892–895. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111565
Published
2019-09-11
Issue
Section
Articles
How to Cite
Gold, E., & French, P. (2019). International practices in forensic speaker comparisons: second survey. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 26(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.38028
