145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27592142)
1. Use of relevant data, quantitative measurements, and statistical models to calculate a likelihood ratio for a Chinese forensic voice comparison case involving two sisters.
Zhang C; Morrison GS; Enzinger E
Forensic Sci Int; 2016 Oct; 267():115-124. PubMed ID: 27592142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Empirical test of the performance of an acoustic-phonetic approach to forensic voice comparison under conditions similar to those of a real case.
Enzinger E; Morrison GS
Forensic Sci Int; 2017 Aug; 277():30-40. PubMed ID: 28575731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Distinguishing between forensic science and forensic pseudoscience: testing of validity and reliability, and approaches to forensic voice comparison.
Morrison GS
Sci Justice; 2014 May; 54(3):245-56. PubMed ID: 24796954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A demonstration of the application of the new paradigm for the evaluation of forensic evidence under conditions reflecting those of a real forensic-voice-comparison case.
Enzinger E; Morrison GS; Ochoa F
Sci Justice; 2016 Jan; 56(1):42-57. PubMed ID: 26746825
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. An empirical estimate of the precision of likelihood ratios from a forensic-voice-comparison system.
Morrison GS; Zhang C; Rose P
Forensic Sci Int; 2011 May; 208(1-3):59-65. PubMed ID: 21131149
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Speaker identification in courtroom contexts - Part III: Groups of collaborating listeners compared to forensic voice comparison based on automatic-speaker-recognition technology.
Bali AS; Basu N; Weber P; Rosas-Aguilar C; Edmond G; Martire KA; Morrison GS
Forensic Sci Int; 2024 Jul; 360():112048. PubMed ID: 38733653
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The impact in forensic voice comparison of lack of calibration and of mismatched conditions between the known-speaker recording and the relevant-population sample recordings.
Morrison GS
Forensic Sci Int; 2018 Feb; 283():e1-e7. PubMed ID: 29291950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Refining the relevant population in forensic voice comparison - A response to Hicks et alii (2015) The importance of distinguishing information from evidence/observations when formulating propositions.
Morrison GS; Enzinger E; Zhang C
Sci Justice; 2016 Dec; 56(6):492-497. PubMed ID: 27914557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Forensic voice comparison and the paradigm shift.
Morrison GS
Sci Justice; 2009 Dec; 49(4):298-308. PubMed ID: 20120610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Consensus on validation of forensic voice comparison.
Morrison GS; Enzinger E; Hughes V; Jessen M; Meuwly D; Neumann C; Planting S; Thompson WC; van der Vloed D; Ypma RJF; Zhang C; Anonymous A; Anonymous B
Sci Justice; 2021 May; 61(3):299-309. PubMed ID: 33985678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Reliability of human-supervised formant-trajectory measurement for forensic voice comparison.
Zhang C; Morrison GS; Ochoa F; Enzinger E
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jan; 133(1):EL54-60. PubMed ID: 23298018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Euclidean Distances as measures of speaker similarity including identical twin pairs: A forensic investigation using source and filter voice characteristics.
San Segundo E; Tsanas A; Gómez-Vilda P
Forensic Sci Int; 2017 Jan; 270():25-38. PubMed ID: 27912151
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Measuring the validity and reliability of forensic likelihood-ratio systems.
Morrison GS
Sci Justice; 2011 Sep; 51(3):91-8. PubMed ID: 21889105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Issues and opportunities: the application of the numerical likelihood ratio framework to forensic speaker comparison.
Gold E; Hughes V
Sci Justice; 2014 Jul; 54(4):292-9. PubMed ID: 25002047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Speaker identification in courtroom contexts - Part I: Individual listeners compared to forensic voice comparison based on automatic-speaker-recognition technology.
Basu N; Bali AS; Weber P; Rosas-Aguilar C; Edmond G; Martire KA; Morrison GS
Forensic Sci Int; 2022 Dec; 341():111499. PubMed ID: 36283276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Speaker-individuality in suprasegmental temporal features: Implications for forensic voice comparison.
Leemann A; Kolly MJ; Dellwo V
Forensic Sci Int; 2014 May; 238():59-67. PubMed ID: 24675042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. What should a forensic practitioner's likelihood ratio be?
Morrison GS; Enzinger E
Sci Justice; 2016 Sep; 56(5):374-379. PubMed ID: 27702454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A method of forensic authentication of audio recordings generated using the Voice Memos application in the iPhone.
Park NI; Lee JW; Shim KS; Byun JS; Jeon OY
Forensic Sci Int; 2021 Mar; 320():110702. PubMed ID: 33561789
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The case for aural perceptual speaker identification.
Hollien H; Didla G; Harnsberger JD; Hollien KA
Forensic Sci Int; 2016 Dec; 269():8-20. PubMed ID: 27855301
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Impact of dynamic rate coding aspects of mobile phone networks on forensic voice comparison.
Alzqhoul EA; Nair BB; Guillemin BJ
Sci Justice; 2015 Sep; 55(5):363-74. PubMed ID: 26385720
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
