TY - JOUR
T1 - Speaker identification in courtroom contexts – Part II: Investigation of bias in individual listeners’ responses
AU - Basu, Nabanita
AU - Weber, Philip
AU - Bali, Agnes S
AU - Rosas-Aguilar, Claudia
AU - Edmond, Gary
AU - Martire, Kristy A
AU - Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was supported by Research England’s Expanding Excellence in England Fund as part of funding for the Aston Institute for Forensic Linguistics 2019–2024.
Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This article is licensed under a Creative commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
PY - 2023/8
Y1 - 2023/8
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Bias
KW - Forensic voice comparison
KW - Likelihood ratio
KW - Recording condition
KW - Speaker identification
UR - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073823002189
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85164295901&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2023.111768
DO - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2023.111768
M3 - Article
SN - 0379-0738
VL - 349
JO - Forensic Science International
JF - Forensic Science International
ER -