Doddington says that a scream being identified is ridiculous. Speech is a performance. He says he is just an electrical engineer, but he does not know how the voice system changes, going from normal speech to a scream.
O'Mara asks Doddington to define the community of speech experts. He notes a couple people in Australia who would probably disagree with French, as the Aussies are more in the "hard science" mold. Then he moves to the community that Doddington is in - he says hard science, probability and statistics, trying to quantify reliability. O'Mara asks how these two communities differ. Doddington said the difference is between the forensic people making decisions, the scientific community is evaluating the reliability of those decisions. Doddington expresses frustration that the forensic people are not self-critical enough. Doddington mentions NIST's standard in the area of Human-aided Speech Recognition (HASR), and the fact that there are millions of trials (speech comparisons); and HASR calls for 15 standard trials or experiments that software can be tested against. The speech examples were 2 1/2 minutes of speech for each. This was considered a difficult test, because the samples were from phone or other media. Doddington says maybe making the speech samples shorter should have been done too, as another way to make the NIST/HASR evaluation useful to distinguish between the speaker analysis softwares.
O'Mara asks about identification of screams. Fool's mission.
It would be a challenge to create the data to test the evaluators. "How do you get the scream data? You have to put people under an unethical amount of stress."
He describes the Lombard effect. People speak louder in a noisy environment. This was simulated with headphones, so a speaker would automatically, without knowing it speak louder. The reverse was done too, getting people to speak softly. He doesn't have the numbers with him, but speaking louder/softer had a significant effect on the performance of the voice recognitions systems.
Increase the distance (of speaker) from the microphone, the error rate goes up.
Asked if he heard Owen's testimony about looping. "Yes, unfortunately I was" "Doing that is ridiculous" You aren't adding thing, there is no basis to say that repetition will improve the performance. It's a violation of common sense. Statistical dependence, which the expert now has to define.
Asked about pitch change. Witness says he was surprised by the mildness of French's rebuke. If you raise the pitch, you change the form of the frequencies, there is absence of basis to compare the format frequencies. On a pitch manipulation like that, the witness would not expect a match. O'Mara adds, which is exactly what Owen's conclusion was, no match.
Asked if he heard a recording of the NEN call. Yes. Says programs that display waveform and spectrograms are all the same (which is basically true, the math is simple).
He addresses "cleaning up" of signal to isolate the speech. He says it is frustrating exercise, unless there is some discrete noise like a 60 Hz hum or a whistle, any constant tone, that can be suppressed and improve things, but even in it is not possible to improve the intelligibility of speech. The human ear is magical in being able to process speech, although sometimes it hears things that aren't there. Nothing Reich did would improve the intelligibility, and probably made it worse. And that is the understanding of the scientific community. Could you hear what Reich heard? Laughter.
Asked about listener bias (hearing what you are preconditioned to hear), "Apparently for Dr. Reich, this was very effective." "Just the imaginary stuff, right?" O'Mara says we'll leave it to the court to decide that. The expert laughs and says "this is absurd." O'Mara takes this as a "no." The witness says that Reich's attached importance of 16 bit data is weird - so the witness looked at the data, and it is 8 bit data. The top 8 bits in the recordings is all zeros. Linear PCM data. 16 bit format, 8 bit data. LOL. Now, I understand exactly what he means. O'Mara doesn't get it. Gets to a question, does this degrade the reliability of the underlying analysis? Yes, but not the reason Reich's opinion sucks. IOW, 8 bit sound data can be plenty good enough.
I like this witness, but I'm a pretty dry fellow, myself. He's being very patient with O'Mara, and it is not easy for him to be patient.