Earwitness Testimony: Never Mind the Variety, Hear the Length

Abstract

Three aspects of voice recognition were investigated in the study reported here: memory for familiar voices, memory for the words spoken, and the relative effects of length and variation in a voice extract on long‐ and short‐term memory. In Experiment 1, recognition memory for the briefly heard voice of a stranger was superior with longer extracts (p<0.01), but increasing vowel variety did not improve performance. This pattern was repeated for short‐term memory (p<0.01) in Experiment 2. Scores for the above task correlated significantly (p<0.05) with scores for recognizing well‐known voices. In a further test of well‐known voice memory in Experiment 3, a weak and non‐significant positive correlation (r=0.29) was found between memory for well‐known voices and memory for a once‐heard voice. Memory for the words spoken did not correlate significantly with memory for the unknown voice itself. The possibilities of a memory‐for‐voices general ability, and forensic applications of the findings are discussed. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Neural correlates of adaptation to voice identity

“…One clue to account for this discrepancy may be that, different to the present syllable stimuli, sentences inevitably exhibited a degree of phonetic overlap between adaptor and test. In addition, sentences are of increased duration and variability, and increasing phonetic variability and duration of the sample substantially improve voice recognition (Bricker & Pruzansky, 1966; Cook & Wilding, 1997; Schweinberger, Herholz, & Sommer, 1997). The contribution of adaptation to syllable‐specific phonetic features to the present VIAE may be seen in line with notions of partially dependent processing of speech and speaker information (Nygaard, Sommers, & Pisoni, 1994; Perrachione & Wong, 2007).…”

Neural correlates of adaptation to voice identity

“…One clue to account for this discrepancy may be that, different to the present syllable stimuli, sentences inevitably exhibited a degree of phonetic overlap between adaptor and test. In addition, sentences are of increased duration and variability, and increasing phonetic variability and duration of the sample substantially improve voice recognition (Bricker & Pruzansky, 1966; Cook & Wilding, 1997; Schweinberger, Herholz, & Sommer, 1997). The contribution of adaptation to syllable‐specific phonetic features to the present VIAE may be seen in line with notions of partially dependent processing of speech and speaker information (Nygaard, Sommers, & Pisoni, 1994; Perrachione & Wong, 2007).…”

Eyewitness Accuracy When Making Multiple Identifications Using the Elimination Line-Up

“……”

“……”

Learning to recognize talkers from natural, sinewave, and reversed speech samples.

“…For instance, the training data show that individual listeners differed in their ability to learn to identify the talkers. We considered several listener-specific variables, such as age, sex, prior musical training, and bilingualism, to determine whether these factors interacted with talker learning (Cook & Wilding, 1997; McGehee, 1937; Thompson, 1985; Van Wallendael, Surface, Parsons, & Brown, 1994). These characteristics did not reliably differentiate fast and slow learners, learners who identified same-sex talkers more accurately than opposite-sex talkers, or listeners who were generally more accurate across all talkers.…”

Neural correlates of adaptation to voice identity

“…One clue to account for this discrepancy may be that, different to the present syllable stimuli, sentences inevitably exhibited a degree of phonetic overlap between adaptor and test. In addition, sentences are of increased duration and variability, and increasing phonetic variability and duration of the sample substantially improve voice recognition (Bricker & Pruzansky, 1966; Cook & Wilding, 1997; Schweinberger, Herholz, & Sommer, 1997). The contribution of adaptation to syllable‐specific phonetic features to the present VIAE may be seen in line with notions of partially dependent processing of speech and speaker information (Nygaard, Sommers, & Pisoni, 1994; Perrachione & Wong, 2007).…”

Eyewitness Accuracy When Making Multiple Identifications Using the Elimination Line-Up

“……”

“……”

Learning to recognize talkers from natural, sinewave, and reversed speech samples.

“…For instance, the training data show that individual listeners differed in their ability to learn to identify the talkers. We considered several listener-specific variables, such as age, sex, prior musical training, and bilingualism, to determine whether these factors interacted with talker learning (Cook & Wilding, 1997; McGehee, 1937; Thompson, 1985; Van Wallendael, Surface, Parsons, & Brown, 1994). These characteristics did not reliably differentiate fast and slow learners, learners who identified same-sex talkers more accurately than opposite-sex talkers, or listeners who were generally more accurate across all talkers.…”

Neural correlates of adaptation to voice identity

“…One clue to account for this discrepancy may be that, different to the present syllable stimuli, sentences inevitably exhibited a degree of phonetic overlap between adaptor and test. In addition, sentences are of increased duration and variability, and increasing phonetic variability and duration of the sample substantially improve voice recognition (Bricker & Pruzansky, 1966; Cook & Wilding, 1997; Schweinberger, Herholz, & Sommer, 1997). The contribution of adaptation to syllable‐specific phonetic features to the present VIAE may be seen in line with notions of partially dependent processing of speech and speaker information (Nygaard, Sommers, & Pisoni, 1994; Perrachione & Wong, 2007).…”

Eyewitness Accuracy When Making Multiple Identifications Using the Elimination Line-Up

“……”

“……”

Learning to recognize talkers from natural, sinewave, and reversed speech samples.

“…For instance, the training data show that individual listeners differed in their ability to learn to identify the talkers. We considered several listener-specific variables, such as age, sex, prior musical training, and bilingualism, to determine whether these factors interacted with talker learning (Cook & Wilding, 1997; McGehee, 1937; Thompson, 1985; Van Wallendael, Surface, Parsons, & Brown, 1994). These characteristics did not reliably differentiate fast and slow learners, learners who identified same-sex talkers more accurately than opposite-sex talkers, or listeners who were generally more accurate across all talkers.…”