Forensic speaker profiling: the study of supra-segmental features of Gujarati dialects for text – independent speaker identification

References

• Balasubramanian T. A textbook of English phonetics for Indian students. Madras: Macmillan India; 1990; p. 69.
   Google Scholar
• Fry DB. The physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1979.
   Google Scholar
• Chiba T, Kajiyama M. The vowel: its nature and structure. Tokyo: Kaiseikan; 1941.
   Google Scholar
• Das SK. A method of decision making in pattern recognition. IEEE Trans. 1969;18:329–333.
   Google Scholar
• Ryo K, Youngon C. Effects of native language on the perception of American English /R/ and /L/: a comparison between Korean and Japanese. ICPh 99, San Francisco, 1999. pp. 1429–1432.
   Google Scholar
• Abberton E, Fourcin AJ. Intonation and speaker identification. Lang Speech. 1978;21(4):305–318.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bolt R, Cooper F, David E, Denes P, Picket J, Stevens K. Speaker identification by speech spectrograms: some further observations. J Acoust Soc Am. 1973;54:531–534.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujimura O. Sweep tone measurements of vocal characteristics. J Acoust Soc Am. 1971;49(2):541–558.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohala JJ. Production of tone. In: Fromkin VA, editor. Tone: a linguistic survey. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1978; p. 5–39.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson GE, Lehiste I. Duration of syllable nuclei in English. J Acoust Soc Am. 1960;32:693–703.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tosi O, Oyer M, Lashbrock W, Pedey C, Nical J, Nash E. Experiment on voice identification. J Acoust Soc Am. 1972;51:2030–2043.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladefoged P. Elements of acoustic phonetics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1962.
   Google Scholar
• O, Oyer M, Lashbrock W, Pedey C, Nical J, Nash E. Experiment on voice identification. J Acoust Soc Am. 1972;51:2030–2043.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kersta LG. Voice print identification infallibility. J Acoust Soc Am. 1962;34(12):1978–1978.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yi Xu. Wallace A. Multiple effects of consonant manner of articulation and intonation type on F0 in English (A). J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;115(5):2397.
   Google Scholar
• Ahmed R, Agrawal SS. Significant features in the perception of Hindi consonants. J Acoust Soc Am. 1969;45(3):758–763.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allard J, Wayland R, Wong S. Acoustic characteristics of English fricatives. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000;108(3):1252–1263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummins F, Gers F, Schmidhuber J. Comparing prosody across many languages. IDSIA Technical Report, IDSIA-07. 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Chao YR. Tone and intonation in Chinese. Bull Inst Hist Philol. 1933;4:121–134.
   Google Scholar
• Fujimura O. Analysis of nasal consonants. J Acoust Soc Am. 1962;34:1865–1875.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiba T, Kajiyama M. The vowel: its nature and structure. Tokyo: Kaiseikan; 1941.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke FR, Bricker RW. Comparison techniques for discriminating among talkers. J Speech Hear Res. 1969;12:747–761.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alexander LF, Valter C. Lexical tone contrast effects related to Linguistic experience. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;109(5):2475.
   Google Scholar
• Cheung RS, Eisenstein BA. Feature selection via dynamic programming for text independent speaker identification. IEEE Trans Acoust Speech Signal Process ASSP. 1978;26(5):396–403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bharati M. Problems of Gujarati phonological structure, dialects and standardization. Vadodara: Atad Publication; 2008; p. 43.
   Google Scholar
• Rose P. Forensic speaker identification. Forensic science series. London: Taylor and Francis; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Singh CP, Singh SR. Voice spectrographic study of class characteristics of Hindi utterances of Punjabi, Dogri and Kashmiri speakers. J Indian Acad Forensic Sci. 1998;37(1,2):40–45.
   Google Scholar
• Gujarati phonology – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
   Google Scholar
• Bharati M. Problems of Gujarati phonological structure, dialects and standardization. Vadodara: Atal Publication; 2008; p. 94.
   Google Scholar
• Hazen B. Effects of differing phonetic context on spectrographic speaker identification. J Acoust Soc Am. 1973;54(3):650–658.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladefoged P. A course in phonetics. 4th ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt; 2001; p. 177.
   Google Scholar
• Ohala JJ. Cross-language use of pitch: an ethological view. Phonetica. 1983;40:1–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green N. Automatic speaker recognition using pitch measurements in conversational speech. Joint Speech Research Unit, Report No 1000; 1972.
   Google Scholar
• Koenig EB. Spectrographic voice identification: a forensic survey. J Acoust Soc Am. 1986;79(6):2088–2090.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smrkovski L. Study of speaker identification by aural and visual examination of non contemporary speech samples. J Official Anal Chemist. 1975;59:927–937.
   Google Scholar
• Stevens KN, Williams CE, Carbonell JR, Woods B. Speaker authentication and identification: a comparison of spectrographic and auditory presentations of speech material. J Acoust Soc Am. 1972;51:2030–2043.
   Google Scholar
• Kulshreshtha M, Singh CP, Sharma RM. Speaker profiling: the study of acoustic characteristics based on phonetic features of Hindi Dialect for forensic speaker identification. Forensic speaker recognition. London: Springer; 2012. pp. 71–100.
   Google Scholar
• Dik JH, Joost VG. The frequency scale of speech intonation. J Acoust Soc Am. 1991;90(1):97–102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mistry PJ. Gujarati phonology‖. In Kaye AS, editor. Phonologies of Asia and Africa. Winona Lake: Eisenbranus; 1997. p. 659.
   Google Scholar
• Grierson GA. 1928. Linguistic survey of India. In Shapiro MC, editor. Facts about the world’s languages, Hindi. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Nolan F. The phonetic bases of speaker recognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1983.
   Google Scholar
• Roach P. English phonetics and phonology. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006; p. 70–101.
   Google Scholar
• Kenneth NS. Acoustical description of syllabic nuclei: an interpretation in terms of a dynamic model of articulation. J Acoust Soc Am. 1966;40(1):123–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillenbrand J, Getty LA, Clark MJ, Wheeler K. Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. J Acoust Soc Am. 1995;97:3099–3111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young M, Campbell R. Effect of contexts on talker identification. J Acoust Soc Am. 1967;42:1250–1254.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• O‘Conner JD. Better English pronunciation. New Delhi: University Book Stall; 1989. p. 100.
   Google Scholar
• Fujimura O. Analysis of nasal consonants. J Acoust Soc Am. 1962;34:1865–1875.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balasubramanian T. A textbook of English phonetics for Indian students. Madras: Macmillan India; 1990; p. 132.
   Google Scholar
• Tiwari B. Hindī Bhāshā. Allahabad: Kitāb Mahal; 1966/2004. ISBN 81-225-0017-X.
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson JE. Inter and intra speaker variability in fundamental voice frequency. J Acoust Soc Am. 1976;60(2):440–445.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lori HH, Andrew J, Lotto K, Kluender R. Influence of fundamental frequency on stop-consonant voicing perception: a case of learned co-variation or auditory enhancement. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;109(2):764–774.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashby M, Maidment J. Introducing phonetic science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008; p. 157.
   Google Scholar