2 research outputs found
Speaker identification in courtroom contexts â Part III: Groups of collaborating listeners compared to forensic voice comparison based on automatic-speaker-recognition technology
Expert testimony is only admissible in common-law systems if it will potentially assist the trier of fact. In order for a forensic-voice-comparison expertâs testimony to assist a trier of fact, the expertâs forensic voice comparison should be more accurate than the trier of factâs speaker identification. âSpeaker identification in courtroom contexts â Part Iâ addressed the question of whether speaker identification by an individual lay listener (such as a judge) would be more or less accurate than the output of a forensic-voice-comparison system that is based on state-of-the-art automatic-speaker-recognition technology. The present paper addresses the question of whether speaker identification by a group of collaborating lay listeners (such as a jury) would be more or less accurate than the output of such a forensic-voice-comparison system. As members of collaborating groups, participants listen to pairs of recordings reflecting the conditions of the questioned- and known-speaker recordings in an actual case, confer, and make a probabilistic consensus judgement on each pair of recordings. The present paper also compares group-consensus responses with âwisdom of the crowdâ which uses the average of the responses from multiple independent individual listeners