1 |
Correlating cepstra with formant frequencies: : implications for phonetically-informed forensic voice comparison
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
2 |
Effects of formant settings and channel mismatch on semi-automatic systems in forensic voice comparison
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
3 |
Sharing innovative methods, data and knowledge across sociophonetics and forensic speech science
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
4 |
Investigating the forensic applications of global and local temporal representations of speech for dialect discrimination
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
5 |
The effect of score sampling on system stability in likelihood ratio based forensic voice comparison
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
6 |
Forensic voice comparison using long-term acoustic measures of voice quality
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
7 |
The use of the vocal profile analysis for speaker characterization : methodological proposals
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
8 |
The individual and the system : Assessing the stability of the output of a semi-automatic forensic voice comparison system
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
9 |
Questions, propositions and assessing different levels of evidence : Forensic voice comparison in practice
|
|
|
|
Abstract:
This paper contributes to the ongoing discussion about the distinction between observations and propositions in forensic inference, with a specific focus on forensic voice comparison casework conducted in the UK. We outline both linguistic and legal issues which make the evaluation of voice evidence and the refinement of propositions problematic in practice, and illustrate these using case examples. We will argue that group-level observations from the offender sample will always be evidential and that the value of this evidence must be determined by the expert. As such, a proposal is made that experts should, at least conceptually, think of voice evidence as having two levels, both with evidential value: group-level and individual-level. The two rely on different underlying assumptions, and the group-level observations can be used to inform the individual-level propositions. However, for the sake of interpretability, it is probably preferable to present only one combined conclusion to the end user. We also wish to reiterate points made in previous work: in providing conclusions, the forensic expert must acknowledge that the value of the evidence is dependent on a number of assumptions (propositions and background information) and these assumptions must be made clear and explicit to the user.
|
|
URL: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/129196/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2018.03.007 https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/129196/1/Hughes_Rhodes_SciJus_2018_.pdf
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
10 |
Three steps forward for predictability : Consideration of methodological robustness, indexical and prosodic factors, and replication in the laboratory
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
11 |
WikiDialects: a resource for assessing typicality in forensic voice comparison ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
12 |
What is the relevant population? Considerations for the computation of likelihood ratios in forensic voice comparison
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
13 |
Mapping across feature spaces in forensic voice comparison: the contribution of auditory-based voice quality to (semi-)automatic system testing
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
14 |
Perceptual similarity of identical twins across different L1 listeners: the importance of voice quality in Forensic Phonetics ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
15 |
Formant dynamics and durations of um improve the performance of automatic speaker recognition systems
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
16 |
The relevant population in forensic voice comparison: Effects of varying delimitations of social class and age
|
|
|
|
In: Speech Communication 66 (2015), 218-230
|
|
IDS Bibliografie zur Gesprächsforschung
|
|
17 |
Front-end approaches to the issue of correlations in forensic speaker comparison
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
18 |
Front-end approaches to the issue of correlations in forensic speaker comparison
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
19 |
The definition of the relevant population and the collection of data for likelihood ratio-based forensic voice comparison
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
20 |
Issues and opportunities: The application of the numerical likelihood ratio framework to forensic speaker comparison
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|