The case for aural perceptual speaker identification.

Once forensic speaker identification (SI) was recognized as an entity, it was predicted that valid computer based identification systems would quickly become a reality. This has not happened and the review to follow will provide some of the reasons why. Notable among them are (1) the sharp underestimation of its complexity and (2) its confounding with speaker verification (SV). Consideration of these (and related) issues will be followed by a brief history about how the need for SI developed and some of the responses to the problem. Since much of the SI development preceded the structuring of appropriate standards, the recommended stop-gap response described here is based on somewhat uncoordinated, but extensive, research. The product of that effort will be reviewed and organized into a platform which supports SI procedures consistent with the forensic model. Also discussed are the standards which have been established, their impact on SI development and its present limitations. How the cited approach interacts both with progress in verification and the developing SI machine-based identification systems also will be considered. Finally, a few suggestions will be made that should assist in upgrading the effectiveness of aural perceptual speaker identification (AP SI).