These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36283276)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Speaker identification in courtroom contexts - Part II: Investigation of bias in individual listeners' responses.
    Basu N; Weber P; Bali AS; Rosas-Aguilar C; Edmond G; Martire KA; Morrison GS
    Forensic Sci Int; 2023 Aug; 349():111768. PubMed ID: 37392611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Effects of language mismatch in automatic forensic voice comparison using deep learning embeddings.
    Sztahó D; Fejes A
    J Forensic Sci; 2023 May; 68(3):871-883. PubMed ID: 36999742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Identification of speaker characteristics by listener groups of different ages and expertise].
    Thiele JM; Schade G
    Laryngorhinootologie; 2020 Dec; 99(12):879-886. PubMed ID: 33137835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Human recognition of familiar voices.
    Wenndt SJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Aug; 140(2):1172. PubMed ID: 27586746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. How does familiarity with a voice affect trait judgements?
    Lavan N; Mileva M; McGettigan C
    Br J Psychol; 2021 Feb; 112(1):282-300. PubMed ID: 32445499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Validations of an alpha version of the E
    Weber P; Enzinger E; Labrador B; Lozano-Díez A; Ramos D; González-Rodríguez J; Morrison GS
    Forensic Sci Int Synerg; 2022; 4():100223. PubMed ID: 35281657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Voice disguise and automatic speaker recognition.
    Zhang C; Tan T
    Forensic Sci Int; 2008 Mar; 175(2-3):118-22. PubMed ID: 17646071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Voice identification in the Dr. Schneider case. Problems in speaker identification by lay persons].
    Künzel HJ
    Arch Kriminol; 1996; 198(1-2):1-10. PubMed ID: 8967825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Effects of the Carrier Phrase on Word Recognition Performances by Younger and Older Listeners Using Two Stimulus Paradigms.
    Wilson RH; Sanchez VA
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2020 Jun; 31(6):412-441. PubMed ID: 31968207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Familiarity and task context shape the use of acoustic information in voice identity perception.
    Lavan N; Kreitewolf J; Obleser J; McGettigan C
    Cognition; 2021 Oct; 215():104780. PubMed ID: 34298232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Data strategies in forensic automatic speaker comparison.
    van der Vloed D
    Forensic Sci Int; 2023 Sep; 350():111790. PubMed ID: 37567041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. On compensation of mismatched recording conditions in the Bayesian approach for forensic automatic speaker recognition.
    Botti F; Alexander A; Drygajlo A
    Forensic Sci Int; 2004 Dec; 146 Suppl():S101-6. PubMed ID: 15639552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. L2 voice recognition: The role of speaker-, listener-, and stimulus-related factors.
    Drozdova P; van Hout R; Scharenborg O
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Nov; 142(5):3058. PubMed ID: 29195438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Speaker Demographics Modulate Listeners' Neural Correlates of Spoken Word Processing.
    Wu H; Duan X; Cai ZG
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2024 Jul; ():1-19. PubMed ID: 39023368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.