A Preliminary Study on the Feature Distribution of Deceptive Speech Signals

A preliminary study is conducted to compare the feature distribution between normal and deceptive speech, and the results are reported in this paper. The objective of this research is to show that deceptive speech may be recognized through the acoustic parameters of general speech characteristics. Six speech parameters, i.e., Mel-frequency Cepstral Coefficients (MFCC), Relative Spectral Filter Perceptual Linear Prediction (RASTA-PLP), pitch frequency, time-domain samples, zero-crossing rate and fractal dimension are used in the statistics. The distributions of these parameters indicate clear differences between the two speech styles. The lowest average degree of difference for these features was 4.74%, and the highest degree was over 20%. Therefore, the distribution demonstrates that there is significant distinction between speech relating the truth and speech relating falsehoods. Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) and the Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) are used to recognize the two psychological states of people’s pronunciation, with accuracy above 50%. The results show that there is in fact deceptive information in speech signals and that it can be detected by pattern recognition. These findings provide the theoretical basis for detecting deception in speech signals.

[1]  K. Gopalan,et al.  Speech Analysis using Modulation-Based Features for Detecting Deception , 2007, 2007 15th International Conference on Digital Signal Processing.

[2]  Hynek Hermansky,et al.  RASTA-PLP speech analysis technique , 1992, [Proceedings] ICASSP-92: 1992 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing.

[3]  M. Pell,et al.  Emotional Speech Processing at the Intersection of Prosody and Semantics , 2012, PloS one.

[4]  Francisco Lacerda,et al.  Charlatanry in forensic speech science: A problem to be taken seriously , 2007 .

[5]  Li Shang,et al.  Immune K-SVD algorithm for dictionary learning in speech denoising , 2014, Neurocomputing.

[6]  Stan Davis,et al.  Comparison of Parametric Representations for Monosyllabic Word Recognition in Continuously Spoken Se , 1980 .

[7]  Alex Acero,et al.  Spoken Language Processing: A Guide to Theory, Algorithm and System Development , 2001 .

[8]  K. Blum,et al.  Long Term Suboxone™ Emotional Reactivity As Measured by Automatic Detection in Speech , 2013, PloS one.

[9]  H. Hollien,et al.  Stress and Deception in Speech: Evaluating Layered Voice Analysis * , 2009, Journal of forensic sciences.

[10]  Christin Kirchhübel,et al.  Detecting suspicious behaviour using speech: acoustic correlates of deceptive speech -- an exploratory investigation. , 2013, Applied ergonomics.

[11]  Lindsey A. Short,et al.  Speech Spectrum's Correlation with Speakers' Eysenck Personality Traits , 2012, PloS one.

[12]  Luigi Anolli,et al.  The Voice of Deception: Vocal Strategies of Naive and Able Liars , 1997 .

[13]  Christie M. Fuller,et al.  Exploration of Feature Selection and Advanced Classification Models for High-Stakes Deception Detection , 2008, Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008).