Speaker identification in courtroom contexts – Part II: Investigation of bias in individual listeners’ responses

Nabanita Basu, Philip Weber, Agnes S. Bali, Claudia Rosas-Aguilar, Gary Edmond, Kristy A. Martire, Geoffrey Stewart Morrison*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)
4 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In “Speaker identification in courtroom contexts – Part I” individual listeners made speaker-identification judgements on pairs of recordings which reflected the conditions of the questioned-speaker and known-speaker recordings in a real case. The recording conditions were poor, and there was a mismatch between the questioned-speaker condition and the known-speaker condition. No contextual information that could potentially bias listeners’ responses was included in the experiment condition – it was decontextualized with respect to case circumstances and with respect to other evidence that could be presented in the context of a case. Listeners’ responses exhibited a bias in favour of the different-speaker hypothesis. It was hypothesized that the bias was due to the poor and mismatched recording conditions. The present research compares speaker-identification performance between: (1) listeners under the original Part I experiment condition, (2) listeners who were informed ahead of time that the recording conditions would make the recordings sound more different from one another than had they both been high-quality recordings, and (3) listeners who were presented with high-quality versions of the recordings. Under all experiment conditions, there was a substantial bias in favour of the different-speaker hypothesis. The bias in favour of the different-speaker hypothesis therefore appears not to be due to the poor and mismatched recording conditions.

Original languageEnglish
Article number111768
Number of pages14
JournalForensic Science International
Volume349
Early online date22 Jun 2023
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2023
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Bias
  • Forensic voice comparison
  • Likelihood ratio
  • Recording condition
  • Speaker identification

Cite this