Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Auditory speaker discrimination by forensic phoneticians and naive listeners in voiced and whispered speech


Bartle, Anna; Dellwo, Volker (2015). Auditory speaker discrimination by forensic phoneticians and naive listeners in voiced and whispered speech. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law: Forensic Linguistics, 22(2):229-248.

Abstract

In whispered speech some important cues to a speaker’s identity (e.g. fundamental frequency, intonation) are inevitably absent. In the present study we investigated listeners’ ability to discriminate between speakers in short utterances in voiced and whispered speech. The performances of a group of 11 forensic phoneticians and a group of 22 naive listeners were compared in a binary forced-choice speaker dis- crimination task, with 48 same-speaker and 60 different-speaker pairs of short speech samples (≤ 3 s) in each test. Listeners were asked to say whether the two voice samples in each pair were produced by the same or different speakers, and to give a certainty rating. The results showed that speaker discrimination is more difficult in whispered than in voiced speech, and that while the phoneticians were only slightly better than the naive listeners in voiced speech, the gap widened in whispered speech. Phoneticians were more cautious in their responses, but also more accurate than naive listeners. When unsure, the phoneticians tended to say two utterances came from different speakers, whereas naive listeners tended to say two utterances came from the same speaker. Results support the view that trained phoneticians may have an advantage over naive listeners in auditory speaker discrimination when the signal is degraded.

Abstract

In whispered speech some important cues to a speaker’s identity (e.g. fundamental frequency, intonation) are inevitably absent. In the present study we investigated listeners’ ability to discriminate between speakers in short utterances in voiced and whispered speech. The performances of a group of 11 forensic phoneticians and a group of 22 naive listeners were compared in a binary forced-choice speaker dis- crimination task, with 48 same-speaker and 60 different-speaker pairs of short speech samples (≤ 3 s) in each test. Listeners were asked to say whether the two voice samples in each pair were produced by the same or different speakers, and to give a certainty rating. The results showed that speaker discrimination is more difficult in whispered than in voiced speech, and that while the phoneticians were only slightly better than the naive listeners in voiced speech, the gap widened in whispered speech. Phoneticians were more cautious in their responses, but also more accurate than naive listeners. When unsure, the phoneticians tended to say two utterances came from different speakers, whereas naive listeners tended to say two utterances came from the same speaker. Results support the view that trained phoneticians may have an advantage over naive listeners in auditory speaker discrimination when the signal is degraded.

Statistics

Citations

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:06 Faculty of Arts > Department of Comparative Linguistics
Dewey Decimal Classification:490 Other languages
890 Other literatures
410 Linguistics
Language:English
Date:2015
Deposited On:20 Nov 2015 10:30
Last Modified:26 May 2017 07:19
Publisher:Equinox Publishing Ltd.
ISSN:1748-8885
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v22i2.23101

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher

Article Networks

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations