my little posters about forensic voice comparison

and it's

takes some examples from real casework to describe

a small experiment to find out

what might be a slightly better way of doing things because as i've written here

when

when we do

real world forensic voice comparison

we want to know what the best approaches to use on the circumstances of the

case

and this is really the

main reason for doing this kind of research simply to find out when you've got

of the case the that the case in front of you

what's the best

approach to use

so

it's deals with the situation way you have recurrent probably syllabic words like alright crops

up a lot not too bad crops up a lot hello okay

in both suspect and offender speech samples

and

if you are using semi

semi automatic forensic

speaker recognition methods then a one of the main things that is the model they

the performance

trajectories on the separate syllables like and i

all

but what i wanted to do was to find out whether you get better strength

of evidence

if you don't do that but measure of the formant trajectories over the whole of

the work

a sort of a kind of so to perform well that it from multiple

so that this was tested with some high-level features

from thee formant a pattern and the tonal fundamental frequency in the cantonese would die

which means first

and validated we'd likelihood ratios

so i obviously there's absolutely nothing whatsoever i can

side you about automatic speaker recognition i realise that but they might be some

interesting aspects

concerning the simple a high-level will to the that we that we working and i

do have some interesting things to say that likelihood ratios which you might want to

come check with me about and

the main reason on here goes is to is to how you can help me

out so please come have a chat thank you