Cover not available

Article published In: Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 22:1 (1999) ► pp.1–42

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Differences and distinguishability in the acoustic characteristics of hello in voices of similar-sounding speakers

A forensic phonetic investigation

 | Australian National University
Published online: 1 January 1999
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.22.1.01ros
Abstract
Forensic Phonetics is an important application of Linguistics that has emerged as a discipline over the last decade. This paper describes a Forensic Phonetic experiment which investigates the nature of within- and between-speaker variation in the acoustic characteristics of the word hello in demonstrably similar-sounding voices. The nature of within-segment variation is determined in repeats of the same word said under different prosodic conditions in order to exclude as much of the linguistically determined variation as is consistent with the realities of the forensic situation, thus providing a good estimate of variation associated with speakers. Intonationally varying tokens of the naturally produced single word utterance hello from six adult Australian males are compared with respect to fundamental frequency, and to centre frequencies and bandwidths of the F-pattern below 5 KHz. This comprises the first five formants and extra resonances, including a possible singer’s formant and tracheal resonance. Results show that between-speaker acoustic differences are pervasive, though not ubiquitous. Magnitudes of between-speaker differences are presented for all parameters, and their forensic significance evaluated. ANOVA and chi-square tests show that even similar-sounding voices differ significantly in their acoustics, especially centre frequencies of F2-F4, formant bandwidth, and incidence of extra resonances. Simulated forensic conditions show that some of these differences are not realistically demonstrable. Nevertheless, there remain sufficient significant differences to distinguish 13 out of 15 pairs: a value of 13% for the denominator of the associated Bayesian Likelihood Ratio for the prosecution hypothesis. Directions for future research are indicated.
References (35)
References
Aitken, C.G.G. (1995) Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baldwin, J and Peter French (1990) Forensic Phonetics. London, Pinter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Broad, David J. (1972) Formants in automatic speech recognition. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 141:411–424. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butcher, Andrew (1996) Getting the voice line-up right: analysis of a multiple auditory confrontation. In Paul McCormak and Alison Russell (eds) Proceedings of the sixth Australian international conference on speech science and technology. Canberra, Australian Speech Science and Technology Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruttendon, A. (1986) Intonation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fant, G. (1960) Acoustic theory of speech production. The Hague, Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1973) Speech sounds and features. Cambridge, Mass., MIT press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. (1994) Introduction: Forensic Linguistics. In John Gibbons (ed.) Language and the Law. Longman, London. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van der, Giet (1987) Der Einsatz des Computers in der Sprechererkennung. In H. Kunzel (ed.) Sprechererkennung: Grundziige forensischer Sprachverarbeitung. Heidelberg, Kriminalistik Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greisbach, Reinhold, Otto Esser and Constanze Weinstock (1995) Speaker identification by formant contours. In Angelika Braun and Peter Köster (eds) Studies in forensic phonetics. Beiträge zur Phonetik und Linguistik 64. Trier, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hirson, Allen (1995) Human laughter - A forensic phonetic perspective. In Angelika Braun and Peter Köster (eds) Studies in forensic phonetics. Beiträge zur Phonetik und Linguistik 64. Trier, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hollien, H. (1990) The Acoustics of crime . New York, Plenum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ingram, J. (1996) Formant trajectories as indices of phonetic variation for speaker identification. Journal of Forensic Linguistics 3, 1.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, C. Gunnar M. Fant and Morris Halle (1952) Preliminaries to speech analysis [tenth reprint 1972]. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, Alex (1994) The limitations of voice identification. In John Gibbons (ed.) Language and the Law. Harlow, Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kunzel, H.J. (1987) Sprechererkennung: Grundziige forensischer Sprachverarbeitung. Heidelberg, Kriminalistik Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, William and Wendell Harris (1994) Addressing social issues through linguistic evidence. In John Gibbons (ed.) Language and the Law. Harlow, Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
LaRiviere, C. (1975) Contributions of fundamental frequency and formant frequencies to speaker identification. Phonetica 311: 185–197. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Naik, Jay (1994) Speaker verification over the telephone network: databases, algorithms and performance assessment. ESCA Workshop on Automatic Speaker Recognition, Identification and Verification 31–38.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nolan, Francis (1983) The phonetic bases of speaker recognition. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990) The limitations of auditory-phonetic speaker identification. In H. Kniffka (ed.) Texte zur Theorie and Praxis forensischer Linguistik. Tubingen, Max Niemayer Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997) Speaker recognition and forensic phonetics. In W. Hardcastle and J.M.D. Laver (eds) The handbook of phonetic sciences. Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robertson, Bernard and G.A. Vigneaux (1995) Interpreting evidence. Chichester, Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rose, Phil (1982) Acoustic characteristics of the Shanghai-Zhenhai phonation types. In D. Bradley (ed.) Tonation. Papers in South-East Asian Linguistics 8. Pacific Linguistics series A, 62.
(1989) On the non-equivalence of fundamental frequency and pitch in tonal description. In D. Bradley, E. Henderson and M. Mazaudon (eds) Prosodic Analysis and Asian Linguistics: to Honour R.K.Sprigg. Canberra, Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995) On the Acoustics of Similar Voices. Paper given at the International Conference on Forensic Linguistics, University of New England.
(1996a) Speaker verification under realistic forensic conditions. In Paul McCormak and Alison Russell (eds) Proceedings of the sixth Australian international conference on speech science and technology. Canberra, Australian Speech Science and Technology Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996b) Aerodynamic involvement in intrinsic F0 perturbations - evidence from Thai-phake. In Paul McCormak and Alison Russell (eds) Proceedings of the sixth Australian international conference on speech science and technology. Canberra, Australian Speech Science and Technology Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rose, Phil and Duncan, S. (1995) Naive auditory identification and discrimination of similar voices by familiar listeners. Journal of Forensic Linguistics 2, 1: 1–17.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rose, Phil and Alison Simmons (1996) F-pattern variability in disguise and over the telephone - comparisons for forensic speaker identification. In Paul McCormak and Alison Russel (eds) Proceedings of the 6th Australian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology. Canberra, Australian Speech Science and Technology Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1968) Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropology 70, 6: 1075–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. (1971) Sources of inter- and intra-speaker variability in the acoustic properties of speech sounds. Proceedings of the 7th international congress of phonetic sciences.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997) Articulatory-acoustic-auditory relationships. In Hardcastle and Laver (eds) The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences. Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Titze, Ingo R. (1994) Principles of voice production. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolf, J. J. (1972) Efficient acoustic parameters for speaker recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 511: 2044–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Hernandez-Laredo, Enrique, Marco Antonio Hernández-Galicia, René Arnulfo García-Hernández & Yulia Ledeneva
2025. Detecting Confusing Drug Names Based on the Phonetic Characteristics of Mel-Frequency Cepstral Coefficient and Evolutionary Computation. In XLVII Mexican Conference on Biomedical Engineering [IFMBE Proceedings, 116], ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo
Padmini, Palli, C. Paramasivam, G. Jyothish Lal, Sadeen Alharbi & Kaustav Bhowmick
2022. Age-Based Automatic Voice Conversion Using Blood Relation for Voice Impaired. Computers, Materials & Continua 70:2 ► pp. 4027 ff. DOI logo
Gresse, Adrien, Mathias Quillot, Richard Dufour, Vincent Labatut & Jean-Francois Bonastre
2019. ICASSP 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), ► pp. 6585 ff. DOI logo
Zuo, Donghui & Peggy Pik Ki Mok
2015. Formant dynamics of bilingual identical twins. Journal of Phonetics 52 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart
2009. Forensic voice comparison and the paradigm shift. Science & Justice 49:4 ► pp. 298 ff. DOI logo
Clermont, Frantz
2007. A Linear-Scaling Approach to Speaker Variability in Poly-segmental Formant Ensembles. In Speaker Classification II [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4441], ► pp. 116 ff. DOI logo
McDougall, Kirsty
2006. Dynamic features of speech and the characterization of speakers: towards a new approach using formant frequencies. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 13:1 ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Cuiling, Joost van de Weijer & Jingxu Cui
2006. Intra- and inter-speaker variations of formant pattern for lateral syllables in Standard Chinese. Forensic Science International 158:2-3 ► pp. 117 ff. DOI logo
Rose, Phil
1999. Long- and short-term within-speaker differences in the formants of Australian hello. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 29:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Rose, Phil
2006. Technical forensic speaker recognition: Evaluation, types and testing of evidence. Computer Speech & Language 20:2-3 ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue