Your browser does not support JavaScript!
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com
1887

access icon free Voice disguise by mimicry: deriving statistical articulometric evidence to evaluate claimed impersonation

Voice disguise by impersonation is often used in voice-based crimes by perpetrators who try to evade identification while sounding genuine. Voice evidence from these crimes is analysed to both detect impersonation, and match the impersonated voice to the natural voice of the speaker to prove its correct ownership. There are interesting situations, however, where a speaker might be confronted with voice evidence that perceptually sounds like their natural voice but may deny ownership of it, claiming instead that it is the production of an expert impersonator. This is a bizarre claim, but plausible since the human voice has a great degree of natural variation. It poses a difficult forensic problem: instead of detecting impersonation one must now prove the absence of it, and instead of matching the evidence with the natural voice of the person one must show that they cannot not have a common originator. The authors address the problem of disproving the denial of voice ownership from an articulatory-phonetic perspective, and propose a hypothesis-testing framework that may be used to solve it. The authors demonstrate their approach on data comprising voices of prominent political figures in USA, and their expert impersonators.

References

    1. 1)
      • 15. Kinnunen, T., Wu, Z.-Z., Lee, K.A., et al: ‘Vulnerability of speaker verification systems against voice conversion spoofing attacks: The case of telephone speech’. 2012 IEEE Int. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2012, pp. 44014404.
    2. 2)
      • 25. Jimenez, A., Raj, B.: ‘A three-way hypothesis test to compare multivariate sets’, Arxiv, 2016.
    3. 3)
      • 1. CNN News Channel, USA: ‘Donald trump on recording: not me’, http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/13/politics/donald-trump-recording-john-miller-barron-fake-press/, May 14, 2016.
    4. 4)
      • 3. Doniger, W.: ‘The woman who pretended to be who she was: myths of self-imitation’ (Oxford University Press, 2004).
    5. 5)
      • 11. McGettigan, C.: ‘The social life of voices: studying the neural bases for the expression and perception of the self and others during spoken communication’, Front. Hum. Neurosci., 2015, 9, (129), p. 129.
    6. 6)
      • 29. Singh, R., Raj, B., Baker, J.: ‘Short-term analysis for estimating physical parameters of speakers’. 4th IEEE Int. Workshop on Biometrics and Forensics (IWBF), Cyprus, March 2016.
    7. 7)
      • 23. Hotelling, H.: ‘A generalized T test and measure of multivariate dispersion’. Proc. of the Second Berkeley Symp. on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 1951, pp. 2341.
    8. 8)
      • 20. Snell, R.C., Milinazzo, F.: ‘Formant location from LPC analysis data’, IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process., 1993, 1, (2), pp. 129134.
    9. 9)
      • 9. McGettigan, C., Eisner, F., Agnew, Z.K., et al: ‘T'ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it – left insula and inferior frontal cortex work in interaction with superior temporal regions to control the performance of vocal impersonations’, J. Cogn. Neurosci., 2013, 25, (11), pp. 18751886.
    10. 10)
      • 13. Hautamäki, R.G., Kinnunen, T., Hautamäki, V., et al: ‘I-vectors meet imitators: on vulnerability of speaker verification systems against voice mimicry’. Interspeech, Citeseer, 2013, pp. 930934.
    11. 11)
      • 27. Labov, W., Ash, S., Boberg, C.: ‘The atlas of North American English: phonetics, phonology and sound change’ (Walter de Gruyter, 2005).
    12. 12)
      • 2. High Court of Justiciary, Edinburgh, Scotland: ‘Her Majesty's Advocate v Thomas Sheridan and Gail Sheridan’, Decided 23 December2010.
    13. 13)
      • 5. Eriksson, A., Wretling, P.: ‘How flexible is the human voice? – a case study of mimicry’. Proc. EUROSPEECH 97, 1997, vol. 2, pp. 10431046.
    14. 14)
      • 8. Deutsch, D.: ‘Auditory illusions, handedness, and the spatial environment’, J. Audio Eng. Soc., 1983, 31, (9), pp. 606620.
    15. 15)
      • 10. Gallois, C., Giles, H.: ‘Communication accommodation theory’, The Int. Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, 2015, pp. 118.
    16. 16)
      • 19. Brand, M.: ‘Structure learning in conditional probability models via an entropic prior and parameter extinction’, Neural Comput., 1999, 11, (5), pp. 11551182.
    17. 17)
      • 4. Zetterholm, E.: ‘Voice imitation: a phonetic study of perceptual illusions and acoustic success’. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University, 2003.
    18. 18)
      • 21. Darling, D.A.: ‘The Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Cramer-Von Mises tests’, Ann. Math. Stat., 1957, 28, (4), pp. 823838.
    19. 19)
      • 24. Anderson, T.W.: ‘An introduction to multivariate statistical analysis’. Technical Report, Wiley, New York, 1962.
    20. 20)
      • 6. Eriksson, A.: ‘The disguised voice: imitating accents or speech styles and impersonating individuals’, in Llamas, C., Watt, D., (Eds): ‘Language and identities’ (Edinburgh University Press, 2010), chap. 8, pp. 8698.
    21. 21)
      • 26. Lamere, P., Kwok, P., Gouvea, E., et al: ‘The CMU SPHINX-4 speech recognition system’. IEEE Int. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP 2003), Hong Kong, vol. 1, Citeseer, 2003, pp. 25.
    22. 22)
      • 14. Schlichting, F., Sullivan, K.P.: ‘The imitated voice – a problem for voice line-ups?’, Forensic Linguistics, 1997, 4, pp. 148165.
    23. 23)
      • 7. Kitamura, T.: ‘Acoustic analysis of imitated voice produced by a professional impersonator’. INTERSPEECH, 2008, pp. 813816.
    24. 24)
      • 22. Kruskal, W.H.: ‘Historical notes on the Wilcoxon unpaired two-sample test’, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 1957, 52, (279), pp. 356360.
    25. 25)
      • 16. Singh, R., Gencaga, D., Raj, B.: ‘Formant manipulations in voice disguise by mimicry’. 4th Int. Workshop on Biometrics and Forensics (IWBF), Limassol, Cyprus, 2016.
    26. 26)
      • 28. The CMU Sphinx suite of speech recognition systems’, http://cmusphinx.sourceforge.net/, 2013.
    27. 27)
      • 12. Mariéthoz, J., Bengio, S.: ‘Can a professional imitator fool a GMM-based speaker verification system?’. Technical Report, IDIAP, 2005.
    28. 28)
      • 18. Ferrand, C.T.: ‘Speech science: an integrated approach to theory and clinical practice (with CD-ROM)’ (Allyn & Bacon, 2006).
    29. 29)
      • 17. Delattre, P.: ‘Coarticulation and the locus theory’, Studia Linguistica, 1969, 23, (1), pp. 126.
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/iet-bmt.2016.0126
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/iet-bmt.2016.0126
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address