Developing Speech Rhythm Analysis for Forensic Voice Comparison

Forensic voice comparison (FVC) involves the comparison of a criminal recording (e.g., a threatening phone call), and a known suspect sample (e.g., a police interview). It is the role of an expert forensic analyst to advise the trier of fact (e.g., judge or jury) on the likelihood that the two samples include the same or different speakers. To do this, the expert will carry out an assessment of the similarity of the speech characteristics in the criminal recording and the suspect sample. Speech rhythm has been proposed as a feature that could contribute to FVC, but there is not yet a structured analysis framework that practitioners can exploit in forensic casework. When an analyst suspects a speaker’s speech rhythm is relevant to an analysis, it is usually only described at an impressionistic level. Using both production and perception experiments, the present research explores whether there are acoustic and auditory cues that could capture speech rhythm and subsequently be used to discriminate between speakers in forensic casework. The production experiments revealed that there was very little discriminatory power in syllabic duration, intensity and f₀ measurements across spontaneous, content-mismatched utterances. However, there does appear to be some speaker discriminatory value in applying these same measurements to, so-called, “frequently occurring speech units” (e.g., “er”, “erm”, “yes” and “no”). The perception experiments aimed to determine whether listeners (expert and non-expert) can make meaningful speaker identification assessments when presented with delexicalised speech samples that foreground the rhythmic attributes of speech. Results revealed that expert listeners were better than non-expert listeners in making correct speaker identification assessments, with those who had expertise in forensic phonetics generally performing better than those who did not. The findings from these experiments give promise to the prospect of developing a perceptual (auditory) rhythm framework which can used in forensic casework.

Publication Details

Journal
University of Lancaster
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17635/lancaster/thesis/2641
Primary Topic
Speech Recognition and Synthesis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Developing Speech Rhythm Analysis for Forensic Voice Comparison

University of Lancaster
Speech Recognition and Synthesis
article

Developing Speech Rhythm Analysis for Forensic Voice Comparison

article en

Abstract

Forensic voice comparison (FVC) involves the comparison of a criminal recording (e.g., a threatening phone call), and a known suspect sample (e.g., a police interview). It is the role of an expert forensic analyst to advise the trier of fact (e.g., judge or jury) on the likelihood that the two samples include the same or different speakers. To do this, the expert will carry out an assessment of the similarity of the speech characteristics in the criminal recording and the suspect sample. Speech rhythm has been proposed as a feature that could contribute to FVC, but there is not yet a structured analysis framework that practitioners can exploit in forensic casework. When an analyst suspects a speaker’s speech rhythm is relevant to an analysis, it is usually only described at an impressionistic level. Using both production and perception experiments, the present research explores whether there are acoustic and auditory cues that could capture speech rhythm and subsequently be used to discriminate between speakers in forensic casework. The production experiments revealed that there was very little discriminatory power in syllabic duration, intensity and f₀ measurements across spontaneous, content-mismatched utterances. However, there does appear to be some speaker discriminatory value in applying these same measurements to, so-called, “frequently occurring speech units” (e.g., “er”, “erm”, “yes” and “no”). The perception experiments aimed to determine whether listeners (expert and non-expert) can make meaningful speaker identification assessments when presented with delexicalised speech samples that foreground the rhythmic attributes of speech. Results revealed that expert listeners were better than non-expert listeners in making correct speaker identification assessments, with those who had expertise in forensic phonetics generally performing better than those who did not. The findings from these experiments give promise to the prospect of developing a perceptual (auditory) rhythm framework which can used in forensic casework.

University of Lancaster
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 74%
Speech Recognition and Synthesis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.