In:Above and Beyond the Segments: Experimental linguistics and phonetics
Edited by Johanneke Caspers, Yiya Chen, Willemijn Heeren, Jos Pacilly, Niels O. Schiller and Ellen van Zanten
[Not in series 189] 2014
► pp. 14–27
Whose voice is that? Challenges in forensic phonetics
Published online: 10 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.189.02cam
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.189.02cam
In this paper, we explore speaker recognition as a process that is based partly
on analysis of phonetic and linguistic features and partly on pattern recognition
(Gestalt perception). Central to this paper is the challenge to incorporate the
dual nature of speaker recognition in forensic casework. To meet this challenge,
we propose the so-called “blind grouping” method. Blind grouping does not
require verbal-analytic terminology, but requires the expert to compare anonymised
fragments and arrange them into groups based on same-speaker and
different-speaker judgements. It allows the forensic expert to use any strategy to
reach a result, including pattern recognition and feature analysis. This method
is proposed as a supplement to the traditional auditory-acoustic method.
References (23)
Bever, T.G. (1975). Cerebral asymmetries in humans are due to the differentiation of two incompatible processes: Holistic and analytic. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 263, 251–262.
Broeders, A.P.A. (2009). De blinde onderzoeker. Trema Tijdschrift voor de Rechterlijke Macht, 6, 237–243.
Cambier-Langeveld, T. (2007). Current methods in forensic speaker identification: Results of a collaborative exercise. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 14(2), 223–243.
Cambier-Langeveld, T., & van der Torre, E.J. (2004). Fighting the confirmation bias: blind grouping.
Proceedings of IAFPA 13th Annual Conference. Helsinki, Finland, 28–31 July, 2004.
French, P., & Stevens, L. (2013). Forensic speech science. In M.J. Jones & R.-A. Knight (Eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Phonetics (pp. 183–197), London: Continuum.
Gold, E., & French, P. (2011). International practices in forensic speaker comparison. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 18(2), 293–307.
Hollien, H. (1990). The acoustics of crime: The new science of forensic phonetics. New York and London: Plenum Press.
Köster, O., Jessen, M., Khairi, F., & Eckert, H. (2007). Auditory-perceptual identification of voice quality by expert and non-expert listeners. In
Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences
,
Saarbrücken, Germany
, 6–10 August, 2007 (pp. 1845–1848).
Kreiman, J., & Sidtis, D.(2011). Foundations of voice studies: An interdisciplinary approach to voice production and perception. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Nolan, F. (2005). Forensic speaker identification and the phonetic description of voice quality. In W.J. Hardcastle & J. Mackenzie Beck (Eds.), A figure of speech: A festschrift for John Laver (pp. 385–411). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
. (2012). Degrees of freedom in speech production: An argument for native speakers in LADO. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 19(2), 263–289.
Rietveld, A.C.M., & Van Heuven, V.J. (1997). Algemene fonetiek [General phonetics]. Bussum: Coutinho.
Robertson, B., & Vignaux, G.A. (1995). Interpreting evidence: Evaluating forensic science in the courtroom. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Schiller, N.O., & Köster, O. (1998). The ability of expert witnesses to identify voices: A comparison between trained and untrained listeners. Forensic Linguistics, 5(1), 1–9.
Schreuder, M. (2011). Expectancy bias and forensic speaker identification.
Presentation at IAFPA 20th Annual Conference
. Vienna, Austria, 24–28 July, 2011.
Van Lancker, D., & Canter, G.J. (1982). Impairment of voice and face recognition in patients with hemispheric damage. Brain and Cognition, 1, 185–195.
Van Lancker, D., & Kreiman, J. (1986). Preservation of familiar speaker recognition but not unfamiliar speaker discrimination in aphasic patients. Clinical Aphasiology, 16, 234–240.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 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.
