School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Forensic Data Science Laboratory, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
Forensic Sci Int. 2024 Jul;360:112048. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2024.112048. Epub 2024 May 6.
Expert testimony is only admissible in common-law systems if it will potentially assist the trier of fact. In order for a forensic-voice-comparison expert's testimony to assist a trier of fact, the expert's forensic voice comparison should be more accurate than the trier of fact's speaker identification. "Speaker identification in courtroom contexts - Part I" addressed the question of whether speaker identification by an individual lay listener (such as a judge) would be more or less accurate than the output of a forensic-voice-comparison system that is based on state-of-the-art automatic-speaker-recognition technology. The present paper addresses the question of whether speaker identification by a group of collaborating lay listeners (such as a jury) would be more or less accurate than the output of such a forensic-voice-comparison system. As members of collaborating groups, participants listen to pairs of recordings reflecting the conditions of the questioned- and known-speaker recordings in an actual case, confer, and make a probabilistic consensus judgement on each pair of recordings. The present paper also compares group-consensus responses with "wisdom of the crowd" which uses the average of the responses from multiple independent individual listeners.
专家证言只有在普通法体系中才被允许，如果它有可能协助事实裁决者。为了使法庭语音比较专家的证言能够协助事实裁决者，专家的法庭语音比较应该比事实裁决者的说话人识别更准确。“法庭语境中的说话人识别 - 第一部分”探讨了个体非专业听众（如法官）的说话人识别是否比基于最先进的自动说话人识别技术的法庭语音比较系统的输出更准确或更不准确的问题。本文探讨了一组协作的非专业听众（如陪审团）的说话人识别是否比这种法庭语音比较系统的输出更准确的问题。作为协作组的成员，参与者听取反映实际案件中受质疑说话人和已知说话人录音条件的成对录音，进行协商，并对每对录音做出概率性共识判断。本文还将组共识响应与“群体智慧”进行了比较，“群体智慧”使用来自多个独立个体听众的响应的平均值。
