Telephone Transmission and Earwitnesses: Performance on Voice Parades Controlled for Voice Similarity

References

1 Boersma P, Weenink D (1992-2015): Praat: doing phonetics by computer. http://www.praat.org/.Search in Google Scholar

2 Broeders APA, Rietveld ACM (1995): Speaker identification by earwitnesses; in Braun A, Köster J-P (eds): Studies in Forensic Phonetics/Beiträge zur Phonetik und Linguistik. Trier, Wissenschaflicher Verlag, vol 64, pp 24-40.Search in Google Scholar

3 Byrne C, Foulkes P (2004): The ‘mobile phone effect' on vowel formants. Int J Speech Lang Law 11:83-102.10.1558/ijsll.v11i1.83Search in Google Scholar

4 Clifford B, Rathborn H, Bull R (1981): The effects of delay on voice recognition accuracy. Law Hum Behav 5:201-208.10.1007/BF01044763Search in Google Scholar

5 Doddington G, Liggett W, Martin A, Przybocki M, Reynolds D (1998): Sheep, goats, lambs and wolves: a statistical analysis of speaker performance. Proc IC-SLD'98, NIST 1998 Speaker Recognition Evaluation, Sydney, pp 1351-1354.Search in Google Scholar

6 Foulkes P, Barron A (2000): Telephone speaker recognition amongst members of a close social network. Forensic Linguistics 7:180-198.10.1558/sll.2000.7.2.180Search in Google Scholar

7 Foulkes P, French P (2012): Forensic speaker comparison: a linguistic-acoustic perspective; in Tiersma P, Solan L (eds): Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp 557-572.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199572120.013.0041Search in Google Scholar

8 Giguère G (2006): Collecting and analyzing data in multidimensional scaling experiments: a guide for psychologists using SPSS. Tutorial Quant Methods Psychol 2:27-38.10.20982/tqmp.02.1.p026Search in Google Scholar

9 Guillemin B, Watson C (2008): Impact of the GSM mobile phone network on the speech signal: some preliminary findings. Int J Speech Lang Law 15:193-218.10.1558/ijsll.v15i2.193Search in Google Scholar

10 Hollien H (1996): Consideration of guidelines for earwitness lineups. Forensic Linguistics 3:14-23.10.1558/ijsll.v3i1.14Search in Google Scholar

11 Hollien H (2002): Forensic Voice Identification. London, Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

12 Hollien H, Majewski W, Doherty ET (1982): Perceptual identification of voices under normal, stress and disguise speaking conditions. J Phon 10:139-148.10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30953-2Search in Google Scholar

13 Home Office (2003): Advice on the use of voice identification parades. UK Home Office Circular 057/2003 from the Crime Reduction and Community Safety Group, Police Leadership and Powers Unit. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advice-on-the-use-of-voice-identification-parades.Search in Google Scholar

14 Jaccard J, Becker MA (1990): Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, ed 2. Wadsworth, Belmont.Search in Google Scholar

15 Kerstholt JH, Jansen NJM, van Amelsvoort AG, Broeders APA (2006): Earwitnesses: effects of accent, retention and telephone. Appl Cogn Psychol 20:187-197.10.1002/acp.1175Search in Google Scholar

16 Künzel HJ (1994): On the problem of speaker identification by victims and witnesses. Forensic Linguistics 1:45-57.10.1558/ijsll.v1i1.45Search in Google Scholar

17 Künzel HJ (2001): Beware of the ‘telephone effect': the influence of telephone transmission on the measurement of formant frequencies. Forensic Linguistics 8:80-99.10.1558/ijsll.v8i1.80Search in Google Scholar

18 Laan GPM (1997): The contribution of intonation, segmental durations, and spectral features to the perception of a spontaneous and a read speaking style. Speech Commun 22:43-65.10.1016/S0167-6393(97)00012-5Search in Google Scholar

19 Lawrence S, Nolan F, McDougall K (2008): Acoustic and perceptual effects of telephone transmission on vowel quality. Int J Speech Lang Law 15:161-192.10.1558/ijsll.v15i2.161Search in Google Scholar

20 McDougall K (2013a): Assessing perceived voice similarity using multidimensional scaling for the construction of voice parades. Int J Speech Lang Law 20:163-172.10.1558/ijsll.v20i2.163Search in Google Scholar

21 McDougall K (2013b): Earwitness evidence and the question of voice similarity. Br Acad Rev 21:18-21.Search in Google Scholar

22 McDougall K, Nolan F, French P, Stevens L, Hudson T (in preparation): Phonetic correlates of the perception of voice similarity: an experiment on Standard Southern British English spoken by males.Search in Google Scholar

23 McGehee F (1937): The reliability of the identification of the human voice. J Gen Psychol 17:249-271.10.1080/00221309.1937.9917999Search in Google Scholar

24 McGehee F (1944): An experimental study in voice recognition. J Gen Psychol 31:53-65.10.1080/00221309.1944.10545219Search in Google Scholar

25 Nolan F (2002): The ‘telephone effect' on formants: a response. Forensic Linguistics 9:74-82.10.1558/ijsll.v9i1.74Search in Google Scholar

26 Nolan F (2003): A recent voice parade. Int J Speech Lang Law 10:277-291.10.1558/sll.2003.10.2.277Search in Google Scholar

27 Nolan F, Grabe E (1996): Preparing a voice lineup. Forensic Linguistics 3:74-94.10.1558/ijsll.v3i1.74Search in Google Scholar

28 Nolan F, McDougall K, de Jong G, Hudson T (2009): The DyViS database: style-controlled recordings of 100 homogeneous speakers for forensic phonetic research. Int J Speech Lang Law 16:31-57.10.1558/ijsll.v16i1.31Search in Google Scholar

29 Nolan F, McDougall K, Hudson T (2011): Some acoustic correlates of perceived (dis)similarity between sameaccent voices. Proc 17th ICPhS, Hong Kong, pp 1506-1509.Search in Google Scholar

30 Nolan F, McDougall K, Hudson T (2013): Effects of the telephone on perceived voice similarity: implications for voice line-ups. Int J Speech Lang Law 20:229-246.10.1558/ijsll.v20i2.229Search in Google Scholar

31 Öhman L, Eriksson A, Granhag PA (2010): Mobile phone quality vs direct quality: how the presentation format affects earwitness identification accuracy. Eur J Psychol Appl Legal Context 2:161-182.Search in Google Scholar

32 Papçun G, Kreiman J, Davis A (1989): Long-term memory for unfamiliar voices. J Acoust Soc Am 85:913-925.10.1121/1.397564Search in Google Scholar PubMed

33 Rathborn HA, Bull RH, Clifford BR (1981): Voice recognition over the telephone. J Police Sci Admin 9:280-284.Search in Google Scholar

34 Rietveld ACM, Broeders APA (1991): Testing the fairness of voice identity parades: the similarity criterion. Proc 12th ICPhS, Aix-en-Provence, pp 46-49.Search in Google Scholar

35 Rose P (2003): The technical comparison of forensic voice samples; in Freckleton I, Selby H (eds): Expert Evidence. Sydney, Lawbook Co, chapt 99.Search in Google Scholar

36 Schiffman SS, Lance Reynolds M, Young FW (1981): Introduction to Multidimensional Scaling: Theory, Methods, and Applications. New York, Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

37 Schmidt-Nielsen A, Stern KR (1985): Identification of known voices as a function of familiarity and narrow-band coding. J Acoust Soc Am 77:658-663.10.1121/1.391884Search in Google Scholar

38 Sørensen MH (2012): Voice line-ups: speakers' F0 values influence the reliability of voice recognitions. Int J Speech Lang Law 19:145-158.10.1558/ijsll.v19i2.145Search in Google Scholar

39 Wixted J, Ebbssen E (1991): On the form of forgetting. Psychol Sci 2:409-415.10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00175.xSearch in Google Scholar

40 Yarmey AD (2003): Earwitness identification over the telephone and in field settings. Forensic Linguistics 10:62-74.10.1558/sll.2003.10.1.62Search in Google Scholar

41 Yarmey D (2004): Common-sense beliefs, recognition and the identification of familiar and unfamiliar speakers from verbal and non-linguistic vocalizations. Int J Speech Lang Law 11:267-277.10.1558/sll.2004.11.2.267Search in Google Scholar