Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Speaker identification in courtroom contexts - Part II: Investigation of bias in individual listeners' responses.
Basu, Nabanita; Weber, Philip; Bali, Agnes S; Rosas-Aguilar, Claudia; Edmond, Gary; Martire, Kristy A; Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart.
Afiliação
  • Basu N; Forensic Data Science Laboratory, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
  • Weber P; Forensic Data Science Laboratory, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
  • Bali AS; School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Rosas-Aguilar C; Instituto de Lingüística y Literatura, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile.
  • Edmond G; School of Law, Society & Criminology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Martire KA; School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Morrison GS; Forensic Data Science Laboratory, Aston University, Birmingham, UK; Forensic Evaluation Ltd, Birmingham, UK. Electronic address: geoff-morrison@forensic-evaluation.net.
Forensic Sci Int ; 349: 111768, 2023 Aug.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37392611
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.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article