TY - JOUR
T1 - INTERPOL survey of the use of speaker identification by law enforcement agencies
AU - Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart
AU - Sahito, Farhan Hyder
AU - Jardine, Gaëlle
AU - Djokic, Djordje
AU - Clavet, Sophie
AU - Berghs, Sabine
AU - Goemans Dorny, Caroline
PY - 2016/6/1
Y1 - 2016/6/1
N2 - A survey was conducted of the use of speaker identification by law enforcement agencies around the world. A questionnaire was circulated to law enforcement agencies in the 190 member countries of INTERPOL. 91 responses were received from 69 countries. 44 respondents reported that they had speaker identification capabilities in house or via external laboratories. Half of these came from Europe. 28 respondents reported that they had databases of audio recordings of speakers. The clearest pattern in the responses was that of diversity. A variety of different approaches to speaker identification were used: The human-supervised-automatic approach was the most popular in North America, the auditory-acoustic-phonetic approach was the most popular in Europe, and the spectrographic/auditory-spectrographic approach was the most popular in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and South and Central America. Globally, and in Europe, the most popular framework for reporting conclusions was identification/exclusion/inconclusive. In Europe, the second most popular framework was the use of verbal likelihood ratio scales.
AB - A survey was conducted of the use of speaker identification by law enforcement agencies around the world. A questionnaire was circulated to law enforcement agencies in the 190 member countries of INTERPOL. 91 responses were received from 69 countries. 44 respondents reported that they had speaker identification capabilities in house or via external laboratories. Half of these came from Europe. 28 respondents reported that they had databases of audio recordings of speakers. The clearest pattern in the responses was that of diversity. A variety of different approaches to speaker identification were used: The human-supervised-automatic approach was the most popular in North America, the auditory-acoustic-phonetic approach was the most popular in Europe, and the spectrographic/auditory-spectrographic approach was the most popular in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and South and Central America. Globally, and in Europe, the most popular framework for reporting conclusions was identification/exclusion/inconclusive. In Europe, the second most popular framework was the use of verbal likelihood ratio scales.
KW - Forensic voice comparison
KW - INTERPOL
KW - Law enforcement
KW - Speaker identification
KW - Survey
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84963558413&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.03.044
DO - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.03.044
M3 - Article
C2 - 27100858
AN - SCOPUS:84963558413
SN - 0379-0738
VL - 263
SP - 92
EP - 100
JO - Forensic Science International
JF - Forensic Science International
ER -