The “Voiceprint” Problem

  • Harry Hollien
Part of the Applied Psycholinguistics and Communication Disorders book series (APCD)

Abstract

“Voiceprints” are a problem that simply will not go away. For example, as late as 1981, the proponents of this method of speaker identification claimed that their approach had been accepted by courts of law in 25 of the states within the United States, by two military courts, plus by two courts in Canada (29). Perhaps more alarming, yet other courts (including several appellate and supreme courts) have admitted “voiceprints,” and these techniques have even been accepted in some European countries. Of course, whether the method can be successfully introduced into other courts, and continued in those that have accepted it previously, is open to question. Nevertheless, this approach to speaker identification appears to be holding on (at least marginally) even in the face of numerous setbacks, negative research and general disapproval by the relevant scientific community. How could this situation occur in countries as technologically advanced as are those cited? An answer is not easily provided.

Keywords

Speaker Verification Speaker Identification False Identification Military Court Speech Scientist 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Albrecht, S. (1987) Electronic Investigation, Police 119:40–42.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anonymous (1975) The Voiceprint Dilemna: Should Voices Be Seen and Not Heard, Maryland Law Review 35:267-296.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Black, J. W., Lashbrook, W., Nash, W., Oyer, H. J., Pedrey, C., Tosi, O. I. and Truby, H. (1973) Reply to Speaker Identification by Speech Spectrograms: Some Further Observations, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 54:535–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bolt, R. H., Cooper, F. S., David, E. C., Denes, P. B., Pickett, J. M. and Stevens, K. N. (1970) Speaker Identification by Speech Spectrograms, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 47:597–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bolt, R. H., Cooper, F. S., David, E. C., Denes, P. B., Pickett, J. M. and Stevens, K. N. (1973) Speaker Identification by Speech Spectrograms: Some Further Observations, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 54:531–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bolt, R. H., Cooper, F. S., Green, D. M., Hamlet, S. L., Hogan, D. L., McKnight, J. G., Pickett, J. M., Tosi, O. and Underwood, B. D. (1979) On the Theory and Practice of Voice Identification, Washington, DC, National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burnham, D. (1971) Voiceprint Mistake Conceded in Tying Inspector to Gambler, New York Times, (March 27).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carbonell, J. R., Stevens, K. N., Williams, C. E. and Woods, B. (1965) Speaker Identification by a Matching-From-Samples Technique, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 40:1205–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Commonwealth (Pennsylvania) vs Topa (1977) No. 134 (appeal of No. 1465, 1972), Opinion, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (February 28).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crown vs Medvedew (1976) Provincial Judges Court (Criminal Division) Brandon, Manitoba, Canada (transcript of testimony).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Endress, W., Bambach, W. and Flossier, G. (1971) Voice Spectrograms as a Function of Age, Voice Disguise and Voice Imitation, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 49:1842–1848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frye vs United States (1923) 293 Fed. 1013, 1014, DC Cir.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gray, C. and Kopp, G. (1944) Voiceprint Identification, Report Presented to the Bell Telephone Labs, 1-14.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hall, M. (1975) Spectrographic Analysis of Interspeaker and Intraspeaker Variabilities of Professional Mimicry, Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hazen, B. M. (1973) Effects of Differing Phonetic Contexts on Spectrographic Speaker Identification, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 54:650–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hecker, M. H. L. (1971) Speaker Recognition: An Interpretive Survey of the Literature, Amer. Speech Hear. Assoc. Mono. 16.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hennessy, J. J. (1970) An Analog of Voiceprint Identification, Unpublished MA Thesis, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hollien, H. (1971) The Peculiar Case of “Voiceprints,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 56:210–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hollien, H. (1977) Status Report on “Voiceprint” Identification in the United States, Proceed., Internat. Conf., Crime Countermeas., Oxford, UK, 9-20.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hollien, H. and McGlone, R. E. (1976) An Evaluation of the “Voiceprint” Technique of Speaker Recognition, Proceed. Carnahan Conf., Crime Countermeasures, 30-45, 1976; reprinted in Nat. J. Crim. Def. 2:117-130, and in Course Handbook, The Institute of Continuing Legal Education, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 391-404.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Houlihan, K. (1979) The Effects of Disguise on Speaker Identification from Sound Spectrograms, in Current Issues in the Phonetic Sciences (H. Hollien and P.A. Hollien, Eds.), Amsterdam, J. Benjamins, B.V., 811–820.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jassem, W. (1968) Formant Frequencies as Cues to Speaker Discrimination, in Speech Analysis and Synthesis (W. Jassem, Ed.), Warsaw, 1:9-41.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kersta, L. G. (no date) Instruction Manual/Procedure for Voiceprint Examinations (with acknowledgment to F. H. East), Voiceprint Lab., Somerville, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kersta, L. G. (1962) Voiceprint Identification, Nature 196:1253–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Koenig, B. E. (1986) Spectrographic Voice Identification: A Forensic Survey, Letter to the Editor, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 79:2088–2090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Koenig, B. E., Ritenour, D. V., Kohus, B. A. and Kelley, A. S. (1987) Reply to “Some Fundamental Considerations Regarding Voice Identification (JASA 82:687-688), J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 82:688–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kuenzel, H. (1987) Sprechererkennung, Heidelberg, Kriminalistik.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ladefoged, P. and Vanderslice, R. (1967) The “Voiceprint” Mystique, UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 126-142.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lundgren, F. A. Message From the President, International Association of Voice Identification, undated but presumably late 1976.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    McGlone, R. E., Hollien, P. A. and Hollien, H. (1977) Acoustic Analysis of Voice Disguise Related to Voice Identification, Proceed. Intern. Conf., Crime Countermeasures, Oxford, UK, 31-35.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Michigan vs Chaisson (1974) Ingham County Circuit Court, East Lansing, ML, Case No. 73-246756-FY.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mississippi vs Windham (1977) Circuit Court Atlata County, (March 17–19).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Obrecht, D. H. (1975) Fingerprints and Voiceprint Identification, Abstracts, Eighth Internat. Cong. Phonetic Sciences, Leeds, UK, 215.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Papcun, G. and Ladefoged, P. (1974) Two Voiceprint Cases, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 55:S463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    People (California) vs Chapter (1973) Case No. 4516, Superior Court., Marin County, Findings and Decision (July).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    People (California) vs Kelly (1976) Crim 19028 (Super. Ct. No. C-29579), Decision, California Supreme Court (May 28).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    People (California) vs Lawton, Gardener and Jackson (1973) Superior Court, Riverside County, Case No. Cr. 9138 (transcript of testimony).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Reich, A. R., Moll, K. L. and Curtis, J. F. (1976) Effects of Selected Vocal Disguises Upon Spectrographic Speaker Identification, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 60:919–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rothman, H. B. (1975) Perceptual (Aural) and Spectrographic Investigation of Speaker Homogeneity, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 58:S107(A).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shipp, T., Doherty, E. T. and Hollien, H. (1987) Some Fundamental Considerations Regarding Voice Identification, Letter to the Editor, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 82:687–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Siegel, D. M. (1976) Cross-Examination of a “Voiceprint” Expert, J. Criminal Defense 2:79–116.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Smrkovski, L. L. (1975) Collaborative Study of Speaker Identification by the Voiceprint Method, J. of the AOAC 48:453–456.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stevens, K. N., Williams, C. E., Carbonnell, J. R. and Woods, D. (1968) Speaker Authentication and Identification: A Comparison of Spectrographic and Auditory Presentation of Speech Materials, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 44:1596–1607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tosi, O. (1979) Voice Identification: Theory and Legal Applications, Baltimore, University Park Press.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tosi, O., Oyer, H. J., Lashbrook, W., Pedrey, C., Nichol, J. and Nash, W. (1972) Experiment on Voice Identification, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 51:2030–2043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Truby, H. M. (1976) “Voiceprinting” A Critical Review, Brief presented to California Supreme Court (re: People vs Kelly) on behalf of the International Association of Voice Identification, 1-44.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Vanderslice, R. (1976) The “Voiceprint” Game, UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Young, M. A. and Campbell, R. A. (1967) Effects of Context on Talker Identification, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 42:1250–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harry Hollien
    • 1
  1. 1.University of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations