Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:43:31.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

25 - Forensic Phonetics

from Section V - Applications of Phonetics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2021

By
Toby Hudson ,
Kirsty McDougall  and
Vincent Hughes
Edited by
Rachael-Anne Knight  and
Jane Setter
Rachael-Anne Knight
Affiliation:
City, University of London
Jane Setter
Affiliation:
University of Reading
Get access

Summary

This chapter introduces the application of phonetics to various legal situations involving speech. In these situations, the identity of a speaker is in question or the linguistic content is disputed. Forensic phonetics focuses on the differences between members of a speech community resulting from physiological differences as well as choices under the speaker’s control (whether conscious or not). While some of this idiosyncrasy is found at the phonological level, the most useful speaker-discriminatory information is often encoded in the fine phonetic detail. It is where such patterns show a good degree of within-speaker consistency and between-speaker difference that the examination of a particular phonetic feature becomes useful in forensic analysis. This chapter considers the place of analysis by ear (by both expert and naïve listeners), the quantitative phonetic analysis of the acoustic signal, as well as automatic methods of analysis. It also considers how best to arrive at a scientifically defensible probabilistic conclusion, and how such conclusions may be communicated in a legal context. Best practice for the teaching and learning of forensic phonetics is also discussed.

Keywords

speaker identityspeaker characteristicsspeaker profilingspeaker comparisonspeaker recognitionspeech evidenceearwitnesslegal
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Phonetics , pp. 631 - 656
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

25.7 References

Aitken, C. & Taroni, F. (2004). Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Alzqhoul, E. A. S., Nair, B. B. T. & Guillemin, B. J. (2015). Impact of dynamic rate coding aspects of mobile phone networks on forensic voice comparison. Science and Justice, 55(5), 363–74.Google Scholar
Atkinson, N. (2015). Variable Factors Affecting Voice Identification in Forensic Contexts, York, UK: University of York.Google Scholar
Baldwin, J. R. & French, P. (1990). Forensic Phonetics. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
Ball, M. J., Howard, S. J. & Miller, K. (2018). Revisions to the extIPA chart. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 48, 155–64.Google Scholar
Berger, C. E. H., Buckleton, J., Champod, C., Evett, I. W. & Jackson, G. (2011). Evidence evaluation: A response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T. Science & Justice: Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 51(2), 43–9.Google Scholar
Blatchford, H. & Foulkes, P. (2006). Identification of voices in shouting. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 13(2), 241–54.Google Scholar
Braun, A. (1994). The effect of cigarette smoking on vocal parameters. In Proceedings of the ESCA Workshop on Automatic Speaker Recognition, Identification, and Verification, Martigny, Switzerland, pp. 161–4.Google Scholar
Braun, A. (2016). The Speaker Identification Ability of Blind and Sighted Listeners: An Empirical Investigation. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
Broeders, A. P. A. (1996). Earwitness identification: Common ground, disputed territory and uncharted areas. Forensic Linguistics, 3(1), 3–13.Google Scholar
Broeders, A. P. A. (1999). Some observations on the use of probability scales in forensic identification. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 6(2), 228–41.Google Scholar
Broeders, A. P. A. & van Amelsvoort, A. G. (1999). Lineup construction for forensic earwitness identification: A practical approach. In Ohala, J. J., Hasegawa, Y., Ohala, M., Granville, D. & Bailey, A. C., eds., Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, San Francisco pp. 1373–6.Google Scholar
Broeders, A. & Rietveld, A. (1995). Speaker identification by earwitnesses. In Braun, A. & Köster, J.-P., eds., Studies in Forensic Phonetics, vol. 64. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 24–40.Google Scholar
Bull, R. & Clifford, B. R. (1984). Earwitness testimony: Psychological perspectives. In Wells, G. L. & Loftus, E. F., eds., Analysing Witness Testimony. London: Blackstone, pp. 194–206.Google Scholar
Bull, R. & Clifford, B. R. (1999). Earwitness testimony. In Heaton-Armstrong, A., Shepherd, E. & Wolchover, D., eds., Analysing Witness Testimony: A Guide for Legal Practitioners and Other Professionals. London: Blackstone, pp. 194–206.Google Scholar
Cambier-Langeveld, T. (2007). Current methods in forensic speaker identification: Results of a collaborative exercise. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 14(2) 223–43.Google Scholar
Cambier-Langeveld, T. (2010). The role of linguists and native speakers in language analysis for the determination of speaker origin. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 17(1), 67–93.Google Scholar
Cambier-Langeveld, T., van Rossum, M. & Vermeulen, J. (2014). Whose voice is that? Challenges in forensic phonetics. In Caspers, J., Chen, Y., Heeren, W., Pacilly, J., Schiller, N. O & van Zanten, E., eds., Above and Beyond the Segments: Experimental Linguistics and Phonetics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 14–27.Google Scholar
Champod, C. & Evett, I. W. (2000). Commentary on A. P. A. Broeders (1999) ‘Some observations on the use of probability scales in forensic identification.’ International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 7(2), 228–41.Google Scholar
Cook, S. & Wilding, J. (1997). Earwitness testimony: Never mind the variety, hear the length. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11(2), 95–111.Google Scholar
de Jong, G., McDougall, K. & Nolan, F. (2007). Sound change and speaker identity: An acoustic study. In Müller, C., ed., Speaker Classification II: Selected Projects. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 130–41.Google Scholar
de Jong-Lendle, G., McDougall, K. & Hudson, T. (2015). Voice lineups: A practical guide. In The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015, Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow. Paper number 0598, 0591–0595.Google Scholar
Deffenbacher, K. A., Cross, J. F., Handkins, R. E., Chance, J. E., Goldstein, A. G., Hammersley, R. et al. (1989). Relevance of voice identification research to criteria for evaluating reliability of an identification. The Journal of Psychology, 123(2), 109–19.Google Scholar
Dehak, N., Kenny, P., Dehak, R., Dumouchel, P. & Ouellet, P. (2011). Front-end factor analysis for speaker verification. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 19(4), 788–98.Google Scholar
Ellis, S. (1990). It’s getting rather serious … early speaker identification. In Kniffka, H., ed., Texte zu Theorie und Praxis Forensischer Linguistik, reprint 2010 ed. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, pp. 515–21.Google Scholar
Ellis, S. (1994). The Yorkshire Ripper enquiry: Part I. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 1(2), 197–206.Google Scholar
Fecher, N. & Watt, D. (2011). Speaking under cover. In Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Hong Kong, pp. 663–6.Google Scholar
Foulkes, P. & Barron, A. (2000). Telephone speaker recognition amongst members of a close social network. Forensic Linguistics, 7(2), 180–98.Google Scholar
Foulkes, P. & French, P. (2012). Forensic speaker comparison: A linguistic–acoustic perspective. In Tiersma, P., & Solan, L., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 557–72.Google Scholar
Fraser, H. (2014).Transcription of indistinct forensic recordings: Problems and solutions from the perspective of phonetic science. In Coulthard, M. & Sousa-Silva, R., eds., Language and law = Linguagem e direito, vol. 1(2). Porto: Universidade do Porto, pp. 5–21.Google Scholar
Fraser, H., Stevenson, B. & Marks, T. (2011). Interpretation of a crisis call: Persistence of a primed perception of a disputed utterance. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 18(2), 261–92.Google Scholar
French, J. P. (1990). Analytic procedure for the determination of disputed utterances. In Kniffka, H., ed., Texte zu Theorie und Praxis forensischer Linguistik. Tubingen: Niemeyer Verlag, pp. 201–13.Google Scholar
French, J. P. (2017). A developmental history of forensic speaker comparison in the UK. English Phonetics, 21, 271–86.Google Scholar
French, P. & Harrison, P. (2007). Position Statement concerning use of impressionistic likelihood terms in forensic speaker comparison cases, with a foreword by Peter French & Philip Harrison. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 14(1), 137–44.Google Scholar
French, P. & Stevens, L. (2013). Forensic speech science. In Jones, M. J. & Knight, R.-A., eds., The Bloomsbury Companion to Phonetics. London: A&C Black, pp. 183–97.Google Scholar
French, P., Nolan, F., Foulkes, P., Harrison, P. & McDougall, K. (2010). The UK position statement on forensic speaker comparison; a rejoinder to Rose and Morrison. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 17(1), 143–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furui, S. (1981). Cepstral analysis technique for automatic speaker verification. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 29(2), 254–72.Google Scholar
Gold, E. A. (2014). Calculating Likelihood Ratios for Forensic Speaker Comparisons Using Phonetic and Linguistic Parameters. PhD thesis, University of York. http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/6166/, last accessed 25 September 2020.Google Scholar
Gold, E. & French, P. (2011). International practices in forensic speaker comparison. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 18(2), 293–307.Google Scholar
Gold, E. & French, P. (2019). International practices in forensic speaker comparisons: Second survey. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 26(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Gold, E. & Hughes, V. (2014). Issues and opportunities: The application of the numerical likelihood ratio framework to forensic speaker comparison. Science and Justice, 54(4), 292–9.Google Scholar
Gold, E., French, P. & Harrison, P. (2013). Clicking behavior as a possible speaker discriminant in English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 43(3), 339–49.Google Scholar
Goldman, J.-P., Leemann, A., Kolly, M.-J., Hove, I., Almajai, I., Dellwo, V. et al. (2014). A crowdsourcing smartphone application for Swiss German: Putting language documentation in the hands of the users. In International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pp. 3444–7.Google Scholar
González-Rodríguez, J., Gil, J., Pérez, R. & Franco-Pedroso, J. (2014). What are we missing with i-vectors? A perceptual analysis of i-vector-based falsely accepted trials. In Proceedings of the Speaker and Language Recognition Workshop, Joensuu, Finland, pp. 33–40.Google Scholar
Hammersley, R. & Read, J. D. (1985). The effect of participation in a conversation on recognition and identification of the speakers’ voices. Law and Human Behavior, 9(1), 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, J. H. L. & Hasan, T. (2015). Speaker recognition by machines and humans: A tutorial review. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 32(6), 74–99.Google Scholar
Hollien, H. (1996). Consideration of guidelines for earwitness lineups. Forensic Linguistics, 3(1), 14–23.Google Scholar
Hollien, H., de Jong, G., Martin, C. A., Schwartz, R. & Liljegren, K. (2001). Effects of ethanol intoxication on speech suprasegmentals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110(6), 3198–206.Google Scholar
Home Office. (2003). UK Home Office Circular 057/2003 from the Crime Reduction and Community Safety Group, Police Leadership and Powers Unit.Google Scholar
Hudson, T., de Jong, G., McDougall, K., Harrison, P. & Nolan, F. (2007). f0 statistics for 100 young male speakers of Standard Southern British English. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken, Germany, pp. 1809–12.Google Scholar
Hughes, V., Foulkes, P. & Wood, S. (2016). Formant dynamics and durations of ‘um’ improve the performance of automatic speaker recognition systems. In Proceedings of the 16th Australasian Conference on Speech Science and Technology (ASSTA), University of Western Sydney, Australia, pp. 249–52.Google Scholar
Hughes, V., Wood, S. & Foulkes, P. (2016). Strength of forensic voice comparison evidence from the acoustics of filled pauses. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 23(1), 99–132.Google Scholar
Innes, B. (2011). R v David Bain – a unique case in New Zealand legal and linguistic history. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 18(1), 145–55.Google Scholar
Jessen, M. (2007a). Forensic reference data on articulation rate in German. Science and Justice, 47(2), 50–67.Google Scholar
Jessen, M. (2007b). Speaker classification in forensic phonetics and acoustics. In Müller, C., ed., Speaker Classification I. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 180–204.Google Scholar
Jessen, M. (2008). Forensic phonetics. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(4), 671–711.Google Scholar
Jessen, M. (2018). Forensic voice comparison. In Visconti, J., ed., Handbook of Communication in the Legal Sphere. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 219–55.Google Scholar
Jessen, M., Köster, O. & Gfroerer, S. (2005). Influence of vocal effort on average and variability of fundamental frequency. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 12(2), 174–213.Google Scholar
Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E. & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 42–52.Google Scholar
Kersta, L. G. (1962). Voiceprint identification. Nature, 196, 1253–7.Google Scholar
Kerstholt, J. H., Jansen, N. J. M., Van Amelsvoort, A. G. & Broeders, A. P. A. (2004). Earwitnesses: Effects of speech duration, retention interval and acoustic environment. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 327–36.Google Scholar
Kinoshita, Y. & Ishihara, S. (2010). f0 can tell us more: Speaker classification using the long-term distribution. In Proceedings of 13th Australasian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 50–3.Google Scholar
Köster, O., Hess, M. M., Schiller, N. O. & Künzel, H. J. (1998). The correlation between auditory speech sensitivity and speaker recognition ability. Forensic Linguistics: The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 5, 22–32.Google Scholar
Künzel, H. J. (1989). How well does average fundamental frequency correlate with speaker height and weight? Phonetica, 46(1–3), 117–25.Google Scholar
Künzel, H. J. (1990). Phonetische Untersuchungen zur Sprecher-Erkennung durch linguistisch naive Personen. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Künzel, H. J. (2001). Beware of the ‘telephone effect’: The influence of telephone transmission on the measurement of formant frequencies. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 8(1), 80–99.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. & Ladefoged, J. (1980). The ability of listeners to identify voices. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 49, 43–50.Google Scholar
Laver, J. (1980). The Phonetic Description of Voice Quality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lawrence, S., Nolan, F. & McDougall, K. (2008). Acoustic and perceptual effects of telephone transmission on vowel quality. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 15(2), 161–92.Google Scholar
Leemann, A., Kolly, M.-J. & Dellwo, V. (2014). Speaker-individuality in suprasegmental temporal features: Implications for forensic voice comparison. Forensic Science International, 238(Supplement C), 59–67.Google Scholar
Lindh, J. & Eriksson, A. (2007). Robustness of long time measures of fundamental frequency. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (INTERSPEECH), Antwerp, Belgium, pp. 2025–8.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. & McNally, R. (2003). ‘Science,’ ‘common sense,’ and DNA evidence: A legal controversy about the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 12(1), 83–103.Google Scholar
McDougall, K. (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), 89–126.Google Scholar
McDougall, K. (2013). Assessing perceived voice similarity using multidimensional scaling for the construction of voice parades. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 20(2), 163–72.Google Scholar
McDougall, K. & Duckworth, M. (2017). Profiling fluency: An analysis of individual variation in disfluencies in adult males. Speech Communication, 95, 16–27. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2017.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDougall, K., Nolan, F. & Hudson, T. (2015). Telephone transmission and earwitnesses: Performance on voice parades controlled for voice similarity. Phonetica, 72, 257–72.Google Scholar
McGehee, F. (1937). The reliability of the identification of the human voice. Journal of General Psychology, 17, 249–71.Google Scholar
McGorrery, P. G. & McMahon, M. (2017). A fair ‘hearing’: Earwitness identifications and voice identification parades. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 21(3), 262–86.Google Scholar
McLaren, M., Lei, Y. & Ferrer, L. (2015). Advances in deep neural network approaches to speaker recognition. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 4814–18.Google Scholar
Moos, A. (2012). Long-term formant distribution as a measure of speaker characteristics in read and spontaneous speech. The Phonetician, 101/102, 7–24.Google Scholar
Morrison, G. S. (2009). Likelihood-ratio forensic voice comparison using parametric representations of the formant trajectories of diphthongs. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(4), 2387–97.Google Scholar
Morrison, G. S. & Enzinger, E. (2016). What should a forensic practitioner’s likelihood ratio be? Science & Justice: Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 56(5), 374–9.Google Scholar
Morrison, G. S., Lindh, J. & Curran, J. M. (2014). Likelihood ratio calculation for a disputed-utterance analysis with limited available data. Speech Communication, 58(Supplement C), 81–90.Google Scholar
Morrison, G. S., Sahito, F. H., Jardine, G., Djokic, D., Clavet, S., Berghs, S. et al. (2016). INTERPOL survey of the use of speaker identification by law enforcement agencies. Forensic Science International, 263(Supplement C), 92–100.Google Scholar
Nolan, F. (1983). The Phonetic Bases of Speaker Recognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nolan, F. (1991). Forensic phonetics. Journal of Linguistics, 27(2), 483–93.Google Scholar
Nolan, F. (1994). Auditory and acoustic analysis in speaker recognition. In Gibbons, J. P., ed., Language and the Law; London: Routledge, pp. 326–45.Google Scholar
Nolan, F. (2001). Speaker identification evidence: Its forms, limitations, and roles. In Proceedings of the Conference ‘Law and Language: Prospect and Retrospect,’ Levi, Finnish Lapland.Google Scholar
Nolan, F. (2002a). Intonation in speaker identification: An experiment on pitch alignment features. Forensic Linguistics, 9(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Nolan, F. (2002b). The ‘telephone effect’ on formants: A response. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 9(1), 74–82.Google Scholar
Nolan, F. (2003). A recent voice parade. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 10(2), 277–91.Google Scholar
Nolan, F. & Grabe, E. (1996). Preparing a voice lineup. Forensic Linguistics, 3(1), 74–94.Google Scholar
Nolan, F. & Grigoras, C. (2005). A case for formant analysis in forensic speaker identification. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 12(2), 143–73.Google Scholar
Nolan, F., McDougall, K. & Hudson, T. (2011). Some acoustic correlates of perceived (dis)similarity between same-accent voices. In Lee, W.-S. & Zee, E., eds., Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Hong Kong, China: City University of Hong Kong, pp. 1506–9.Google Scholar
Orchard, T. L. & Yarmey, A. D. (1995). The effects of whispers, voice-sample duration, and voice distinctiveness on criminal speaker identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 249–60.Google Scholar
Ormerod, D. (2001). Sounds familiar? Voice identification evidence. Criminal Law Review, 595–622.Google Scholar
Paliwal, K. K. (1984). Effectiveness of different vowel sounds in automatic speaker identification. Journal of Phonetics, 12, 17–21.Google Scholar
Perfect, T. J., Hunt, L. J. & Harris, C. M. (2002). Verbal overshadowing in voice recognition. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16(8), 973–80.Google Scholar
Rabiner, L. & Juang, B.-H. (1993). Fundamentals of Speech Recognition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Reynolds, D. A., Quatieri, T. F. & Dunn, R. B. (2000). Speaker verification using Adapted Gaussian mixture models. Digital Signal Processing, 10, 93–112.Google Scholar
Robson, J. (2017). A fair hearing? The use of voice identification parades in criminal investigations in England and Wales. Criminal Law Review, (1), 36–50.Google Scholar
Rose, P. (2002). Forensic Speaker Identification. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Rose, P. & Morrison, G. S. (2009). A response to the UK Position Statement on forensic speaker comparison. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 16(1), 139–63.Google Scholar
San Segundo, E. & Mompean, J. A. (2017). A simplified vocal profile analysis protocol for the assessment of voice quality and speaker similarity. Journal of Voice: Official Journal of the Voice Foundation, 31(5), 644.e11–644.e27.Google Scholar
Schilling, N. & Marsters, A. (2015). Unmasking identity: Speaker profiling for forensic linguistic purposes. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 195–214.Google Scholar
Snyder, D., Garcia-Romero, D., Sell, G., Povey, D. & Khudanpur, S. (2018). X-Vectors: Robust DNN embeddings for speaker recognition. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 5329–33.Google Scholar
Solan, L. W. & Tiersma, P. M. (2003). Hearing voices: Speaker identification in court. Hastings Law Journal, 54, 373–435.Google Scholar
van Bezooijen, R. (1995). Sociocultural aspects of pitch differences between Japanese and Dutch women. Language and Speech, 38(3), 253–65.Google Scholar
Vanags, T., Carroll, M. & Perfect, T. J. (2005). Verbal overshadowing: A sound theory in voice recognition? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(9), 1127–44.Google Scholar
Watt, D. (2010). The identification of the individual through speech. In Llamas, C. & Watt, D. D., eds., Language and Identities. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 76–85.Google Scholar
Yarmey, A. D. (2007). The psychology of speaker identification and earwitness memory. In Lindsay, R. C. L., Ross, D. F., Read, J. D. & Toglia, M. P., eds., The Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology. Volume II Memory for People. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 101–36.Google Scholar
Zhang, C., Morrison, G. S. & Thiruvaran, T. (2011). Forensic voice comparison using Chinese /iau/. In Lee, W.-S. & Zee, E., eds., Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Hong Kong, China: City University of Hong Kong, pp. 2280–3.Google Scholar
Zhang, C., Morrison, G. S., Enzinger, E. & Ochoa, F. (2013). Effects of telephone transmission on the performance of formant-trajectory-based forensic voice comparison: Female voices. Speech Communication, 55(6), 796–813.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×