Search results

• 2023

  A response to Busey & Klutzke (2022): Regarding subjective assignment of likelihood ratios

  Morrison, G. S., Jan 2023, In: Science and Justice. 63, 1, p. 61-62

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview

  Open Access

  File

• A single test pair does not a method validation make: A response to Kirchhübel et al. (2023)

  Morrison, G. S., 17 Mar 2023, In: Science and Justice. 63, 3, p. 327–329 3 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview › peer-review

  Open Access

• Speaker identification in courtroom contexts – Part II: Investigation of bias in individual listeners’ responses

  Basu, N., Weber, P., Bali, A. S., Rosas-Aguilar, C., Edmond, G., Martire, K. A. & Morrison, G. S., Aug 2023, In: Forensic Science International. 349, 111768 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • listener 100%
  • recording 87%
  • trend 48%
  • experiment 19%
  • mismatch 11%
• 2022

  Advancing a paradigm shift in evaluation of forensic evidence: The rise of forensic data science

  Morrison, G. S., May 2022, In: Forensic Science International: Synergy. 5, 100270.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • Forensic Sciences 100%
  • Data Science 96%
  • paradigm 45%
  • evaluation 31%
  • evidence 28%

• A plague on both your houses: The debate about how to deal with “inconclusive” conclusions when calculating error rates

  Morrison, G. S., 23 Nov 2022, (E-pub ahead of print) In: Law, Probability and Risk.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview

• A strawman with machine learning for a brain: A response to Biedermann (2022) the strange persistence of (source) “identification” claims in forensic literature

  Morrison, G. S., Ramos, D., Ypma, R. JF., Basu, N., Bie, K. D., Enzinger, E., Geradts, Z., Meuwly, D., Vloed, D. V. D., Vergeer, P. & Weber, P., 19 May 2022, In: Forensic Science International: Synergy. 4, 2 p., 100230.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • Machine Learning 100%
  • persistence 78%
  • brain 74%
  • criticism 47%
  • Brain 43%

• Forensic comparison of fired cartridge cases: Feature-extraction methods for feature-based calculation of likelihood ratios

  Basu, N., Bolton-King, R. S. & Morrison, G. S., May 2022, In: Forensic Science International: Synergy. 5, 100272.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • Firearms 100%
  • Databases 26%
  • present 11%
  • literature 9%

• Forensic voice comparison – Human-supervised-automatic approach

  Morrison, G. S., Weber, P., Enzinger, E., Labrador, B., Lozano-Díez, A., Ramos, D. & González-Rodríguez, J., 1 Nov 2022, Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences. Houck, M., Eldridge, H., Lewis, S., Lothridge, K., Reedy, P. & Wilson, L. (eds.). 3 ed. Elsevier, Vol. 2. p. 720-736 17 p.

  Research output: Chapter in Book/Published conference output › Entry for encyclopedia/dictionary

  • Calibration 100%

• Forensic voice comparison – Overview

  Morrison, G. S. & Zhang, C., 1 Nov 2022, Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences. Houck, M., Eldridge, H., Lewis, S., Lothridge, K., Reedy, P. & Wilson, L. (eds.). 3 ed. Elsevier, Vol. 2. p. 737-750 14 p.

  Research output: Chapter in Book/Published conference output › Entry for encyclopedia/dictionary

• Speaker identification in courtroom contexts - Part I: Individual listeners compared to forensic voice comparison based on automatic-speaker-recognition technology

  Basu, N., Bali, A. S., Weber, P., Rosas-Aguilar, C., Edmond, G., Martire, K. A. & Morrison, G. S., Dec 2022, In: Forensic science international. 341, 22 p., 111499.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • Psychology Recognition 100%
  • Language 90%
  • Sodium Glutamate 75%
  • Technology 74%
  • Expert Testimony 29%

• The opacity myth: A response to Swofford & Champod (2022)

  Morrison, G. S., Basu, N., Enzinger, E. & Weber, P., 19 Jun 2022, In: Forensic Science International: Synergy. 5, 100275.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • myth 100%
  • Interviews 75%
  • Machine Learning 64%
  • synergy 57%
  • learning method 55%

• Validations of an alpha version of the E3 Forensic Speech Science System (E3FS3) core software tools

  Weber, P., Enzinger, E., Labrador, B., Lozano-díez, A., Ramos, D., González-rodríguez, J. & Morrison, G. S., 7 Mar 2022, In: Forensic Science International: Synergy. 4, 100223.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • Forensic Sciences 100%
  • system comparison 56%
  • Software 52%
  • software 47%
  • recording 46%
• 2021

  Calculation of likelihood ratios for inference of biological sex from human skeletal remains

  Morrison, G. S., Weber, P., Basu, N., Puch-Solis, R. & Randolph-Quinney, P. S., 27 Sept 2021, In: Forensic Science International: Synergy. 3, 100202.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • Body Remains 100%
  • Forensic Anthropology 60%
  • Statistical Models 52%
  • Discriminant Analysis 35%
  • anthropology 25%

• Consensus on validation of forensic voice comparison

  Morrison, G. S., Enzinger, E., Hughes, V., Jessen, M., Meuwly, D., Neumann, C., Planting, S., Thompson, W. C., van der Vloed, D., Ypma, R. J. F., Zhang, C., Anonymous, A. & Anonymous, B., May 2021, In: Science and Justice. 61, 3, p. 299-309 11 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • Forensic Sciences 100%
  • Research Personnel 48%
  • Lawyers 48%

• In the context of forensic casework, are there meaningful metrics of the degree of calibration?

  Morrison, G. S., 12 Jun 2021, In: Forensic Science International: Synergy. 3, 100157.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • casework 100%
  • Calibration 82%
  • evaluation 9%
  • simulation 7%

• Reply to Response to Vacuous standards – subversion of the OSAC standards-development process

  Morrison, G. S., Neumann, C., Geoghegan, P. H., Edmond, G., Grant, T., Ostrum, R. B., Roberts, P., Saks, M., Syndercombe Court, D., Thompson, W. C. & Zabell, S., 2021, In: Forensic Science International: Synergy. 3, 100149.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview › peer-review

  Open Access

  • subversion 100%
• 2020

  Statistical models in forensic voice comparison

  Morrison, G. S., Enzinger, E., Ramos, D., González-Rodríguez, J. & Lozano-Díez, A., 28 Sept 2020, Handbook of Forensic Statistics. Banks, D. L., Kafadar, K., Kaye, D. H. & Tackett, M. (eds.). CRC Press, p. 451–497

  Research output: Chapter in Book/Published conference output › Chapter (peer-reviewed) › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • Statistical Model 100%
  • Likelihood Ratio 85%
  • Modeling 31%
  • Gaussian Mixture Model 30%
  • Feature Extraction 28%

• Vacuous standards – Subversion of the OSAC standards-development process

  Morrison, G. S., Neumann, C. & Geoghegan, P. H., 30 Jun 2020, In: Forensic Science International: Synergy. 2, p. 206-209 4 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Editorial › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • subversion 100%
  • Forensic Sciences 72%
  • Organizations 14%
  • Publications 13%
  • organization 9%
• 2019

  A method for calculating the strength of evidence associated with an earwitness’s claimed recognition of a familiar speaker

  Rosas, C., Sommerhoff, J. & Morrison, G. S., 1 Nov 2019, In: Science and Justice. 59, 6, p. 585-596 12 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • Criminals 100%
  • Population 8%

• A statistical procedure to adjust for time-interval mismatch in forensic voice comparison

  Morrison, G. S. & Kelly, F., 1 Sept 2019, In: Speech Communication. 112, p. 15-21 7 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • Voice 100%
  • Time Interval 84%
  • Mismatch 79%
  • statistical method 72%
  • mismatch 71%

• Forensic speech science

  Morrison, G. S., Zhang, C. & Enzinger, E., 10 May 2019, Expert Evidence: Law, Practice, Procedure and Advocacy. Freckelton, I. & Selby, H. (eds.). 6th ed. Sydney, Australia

  Research output: Chapter in Book/Published conference output › Chapter

  Open Access

  • edition 100%
  • jury member 45%
  • system comparison 45%
  • layperson 34%
  • acoustics 29%

• Introduction to forensic voice comparison

  Morrison, G. S. & Enzinger, E., 28 Mar 2019, The Routledge Handbook of Phonetics. Katz, W. F. & Assmann, P. F. (eds.). p. 599–634 36 p.

  Research output: Chapter in Book/Published conference output › Chapter

  Open Access

  File

  • system comparison 100%
  • acoustics 65%
  • phonetics 64%
  • Likelihood Ratio 63%
  • Acoustic Phonetics 62%

• Multi-laboratory evaluation of forensic voice comparison systems under conditions reflecting those of a real forensic case (forensic_eval_01) – Conclusion

  Morrison, G. S. & Enzinger, E., 1 Sept 2019, In: Speech Communication. 112, p. 37-39 3 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Editorial › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • system comparison 100%
  • Voice 87%
  • Evaluation 44%
  • evaluation 27%
  • Summary 14%
• 2018

  Admissibility of forensic voice comparison testimony in England and Wales

  Morrison, G. S., 1 Jan 2018, In: Criminal Law Review. 2018, 1, p. 20-33 14 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • Wales 100%
  • England 84%
  • testimony 83%
  • Criminals 67%
  • Direction compound 41%

• A response to Marquis et al (2017) What is the error margin of your signature analysis?

  Morrison, G. S., Ballentyne, K. & Geoghegan, P., Jun 2018, In: Forensic Science International. 287, p. e11-e12 6 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • Forensic Sciences 100%
  • Statistical Models 77%
  • prosecution 70%
  • Hand 52%
  • trend 33%

• Score based procedures for the calculation of forensic likelihood ratios - scores should take account of both similarity and typicality

  Morrison, G. S. & Enzinger, E., 1 Jan 2018, In: Science and Justice. 58, 1, p. 47-58

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • Forensic Sciences 100%
  • Population 27%

• The impact in forensic voice comparison of lack of calibration and of mismatched conditions between the known-speaker recording and the relevant-population sample recordings

  Morrison, G. S., 1 Feb 2018, In: Forensic Science International. 283, p. e1-e7

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • New South Wales 100%
  • Calibration 82%
  • recording 71%
  • lack 40%
  • Population 31%

• 法庭说话人识别新范式实证研究

  Translated title of the contribution: Forensic voice comparison using the new paradigm for a real caseMorrison, G. S., Zhang, C. & Enzinger, E., 31 Dec 2018, In: Journal of Chinese People's Public Security University(Science and Technology). 97, 3, p. 30-37

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  • paradigm 100%
  • telephone 94%
  • recording 90%
  • logistics 78%
  • regression 64%
• 2017

  A comment on the PCAST report: skip the “match”/“non-match” stage

  Morrison, G. S., Kaye, D. H., Balding, D. J., Taylor, D., Dawid, P., Aitken, C. G. G., Gittelson, S., Zadora, G., Robertson, B., Willis, S., Pope, S., Neil, M., Martire, K. A., Hepler, A., Gill, R. D., Jamieson, A., de Zoete, J., Ostrum, R. B. & Caliebe, A., 1 Mar 2017, In: Forensic Science International. 272, p. e7-e9 3 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • president 100%
  • Technology 88%
  • acceptance 63%
  • Criminal courts 55%
  • statistical method 46%

• Assessing the admissibility of a new generation of forensic voice comparison testimony

  Morrison, G. S. & Thompson, W. C., 15 May 2017, In: Columbia Science and Technology Law Review. 18, p. 326–434

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • testimony 100%
  • recording 25%
  • system comparison 23%
  • expert opinions 16%
  • evidence 12%

• Avoiding overstating the strength of forensic evidence: Shrunk likelihood ratios/Bayes factors

  Morrison, G. S. & Poh, N., 22 Dec 2017, In: Science and Justice. 58, 3, p. 200-218

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • Logistic Models 100%
  • Statistical Models 85%
  • Discriminant Analysis 85%
  • Benchmarking 82%
  • Glass 73%

• Empirical test of the performance of an acoustic-phonetic approach to forensic voice comparison under conditions similar to those of a real case

  Enzinger, E. & Morrison, G. S., 1 Aug 2017, In: Forensic Science International. 277, p. 30-40 11 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • Phonetics 100%
  • acoustics 85%
  • phonetics 85%
  • Acoustics 80%
  • testimony 39%

• What should a forensic practitioner's likelihood ratio be? II

  Morrison, G. S., Nov 2017, In: Science and Justice. 57, 6, p. 472-476

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • Statistical Models 100%
  • Hearing 40%
• 2016

  A demonstration of the application of the new paradigm for the evaluation of forensic evidence under conditions reflecting those of a real forensic-voice-comparison case

  Enzinger, E., Morrison, G. S. & Ochoa, F., 1 Jan 2016, In: Science and Justice. 56, 1, p. 42-57 16 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  • Criminals 100%
  • Statistical Models 47%
  • Acoustics 42%
  • Telephone 40%
  • Noise 38%

• INTERPOL survey of the use of speaker identification by law enforcement agencies

  Morrison, G. S., Sahito, F. H., Jardine, G., Djokic, D., Clavet, S., Berghs, S. & Goemans Dorny, C., 1 Jun 2016, In: Forensic Science International. 263, p. 92-100 9 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  • Law Enforcement 100%
  • Law enforcement agencies 82%
  • Central America 24%
  • Phonetics 22%
  • Middle East 21%

• Multi-laboratory evaluation of forensic voice comparison systems under conditions reflecting those of a real forensic case (forensic_eval_01) – Introduction

  Morrison, G. S. & Enzinger, E., 1 Dec 2016, In: Speech Communication. 85, p. 119-126 8 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Editorial › peer-review

  • system comparison 100%
  • Voice 87%
  • recording 53%
  • Evaluation 44%
  • evaluation 27%

• Refining the relevant population in forensic voice comparison – A response to Hicks et alii (2015) The importance of distinguishing information from evidence/observations when formulating propositions

  Morrison, G. S., Enzinger, E. & Zhang, C., 11 Jul 2016, In: Science and Justice. 56, 6, p. 492-497 6 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview › peer-review

  • Sodium Glutamate 100%
  • Population 59%

• Special issue on measuring and reporting the precision of forensic likelihood ratios: Introduction to the debate

  Morrison, G. S., 1 Sept 2016, In: Science and Justice. 56, 5, p. 371-373 3 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  • Social Justice 100%

• Use of relevant data, quantitative measurements, and statistical models to calculate a likelihood ratio for a Chinese forensic voice comparison case involving two sisters

  Zhang, C., Morrison, G. S. & Enzinger, E., 1 Oct 2016, In: Forensic Science International. 267, p. 115-124 10 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  • Cell Phone 100%
  • Statistical Models 92%
  • recording 73%
  • China 66%
  • telephone 50%

• What should a forensic practitioner's likelihood ratio be?

  Morrison, G. S. & Enzinger, E., 1 Sept 2016, In: Science and Justice. 56, 5, p. 374-379 6 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  • Uncertainty 100%
  • Population 42%
• 2015

  Mismatched distances from speakers to telephone in a forensic-voice-comparison case

  Enzinger, E. & Morrison, G. S., 1 Jun 2015, In: Speech Communication. 70, p. 28-41 14 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  • Voice 100%
  • system comparison 76%
  • Telephone 72%
  • telephone 64%
  • Training 55%
• 2014

  An acoustic and statistical analysis of spanish mid-vowel allophones

  Morrison, G. S., 2014, In: Estudios de Fonetica Experimental. 13, p. 12-37 26 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

  • Mid Vowels 100%
  • Allophone 90%
  • Acoustic Analysis 85%
  • Statistical Analysis 68%
  • acoustics 64%

• Distinguishing between forensic science and forensic pseudoscience: Testing of validity and reliability, and approaches to forensic voice comparison

  Morrison, G. S., May 2014, In: Science and Justice. 54, 3, p. 245-256 12 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

  • Forensic Sciences 100%
  • Reproducibility of Results 61%
  • Phonetics 43%
  • Statistical Models 38%
  • Acoustics 34%

• Forensic strength of evidence statements should preferably be likelihood ratios calculated using relevant data, quantitative measurements, and statistical models: A response to Lennard (2013) Fingerprint identification: how far have we come?

  Morrison, G. S. & Stoel, R. D., 3 Jul 2014, In: Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences. 46, 3, p. 282-292 11 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

  • Dermatoglyphics 100%
  • Statistical Models 95%
  • Expert Testimony 22%
  • Reproducibility of Results 19%

• Likelihood ratio calculation for a disputed-utterance analysis with limited available data

  Morrison, G. S., Lindh, J. & Curran, J. M., Mar 2014, In: Speech Communication. 58, p. 81-90 10 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  • Likelihood Ratio 100%
  • Covariance matrix 64%
  • Statistical Models 57%
  • Utterance 55%
  • Statistical Model 34%
• 2013

  Effects of telephone transmission on the performance of formant-trajectory-based forensic voice comparison-Female voices

  Zhang, C., Morrison, G. S., Enzinger, E. & Ochoa, F., Jul 2013, In: Speech Communication. 55, 6, p. 796-813 18 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  • Voice 100%
  • Female Voice 93%
  • Formants 89%
  • Telephone 72%
  • telephone 64%

• Reliability of human-supervised formant-trajectory measurement for forensic voice comparison

  Zhang, C., Morrison, G. S., Ochoa, F. & Enzinger, E., Jan 2013, In: Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 133, 1, EL54.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  • trajectory measurement 100%
  • Formants 72%
  • Trajectory 51%
  • Supervisors 40%
  • phonetics 27%

• Tutorial on logistic-regression calibration and fusion: converting a score to a likelihood ratio

  Morrison, G. S., 1 Jun 2013, In: Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences. 45, 2, p. 173-197 25 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  • Calibration 100%
  • Logistic Models 63%
  • Forensic Sciences 27%
  • Dermatoglyphics 22%
  • Fingers 17%

• Vowel Inherent Spectral Change

  Morrison, G. S. (ed.) & Assmann, P. F. (ed.), 2013, Springer.

  Research output: Book/Report › Book
• 2012

  Perception of natural vowels by monolingual Canadian-English, Mexican-Spanish, and Peninsular-Spanish listeners

  Morrison, G. S., Dec 2012, In: Canadian Acoustics - Acoustique Canadienne. 40, 4, p. 29-39 11 p.

  Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

  Open Access

  File

  • vowels 100%
  • assimilation 37%
  • Mexico 35%
  • Spain 33%
  • Canada 30%