Sign language perception research for improving automatic sign language recognition

Current automatic sign language recognition (ASLR) seldom uses perceptual knowledge about the recognition of sign language. Using such knowledge can improve ASLR because it can give an indication which elements or phases of a sign are important for its meaning. Also, the current generation of data-driven ASLR methods has shortcomings which may not be solvable without the use of knowledge on human sign language processing. Handling variation in the precise execution of signs is an example of such shortcomings: data-driven methods (which include almost all current methods) have difficulty recognizing signs that deviate too much from the examples that were used to train the method. Insight into human sign processing is needed to solve these problems. Perceptual research on sign language can provide such insights. This paper discusses knowledge derived from a set of sign perception experiments, and the application of such knowledge in ASLR. Among the findings are the facts that not all phases and elements of a sign are equally informative, that defining the 'correct' form for a sign is not trivial, and that statistical ASLR methods do not necessarily arrive at sign representations that resemble those of human beings. Apparently, current ASLR methods are quite different from human observers: their method of learning gives them different sign definitions, they regard each moment and element of a sign as equally important and they employ a single definition of 'correct' for all circumstances. If the object is for an ASLR method to handle natural sign language, then the insights from sign perception research must be integrated into ASLR.

[1]  Dimitris N. Metaxas,et al.  Parallel hidden Markov models for American sign language recognition , 1999, Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision.

[2]  Marcel J. T. Reinders,et al.  Sign Language Recognition by Combining Statistical DTW and Independent Classification , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[3]  Andrea J. van Doorn,et al.  When do people start to recognize signs , 2009 .

[4]  John K. Tsotsos,et al.  Hand Gesture Recognition within a Linguistics-Based Framework , 2004, ECCV.

[5]  D. McNeill Hand and Mind , 1995 .

[6]  Wen Gao,et al.  A Real-Time Large Vocabulary Recognition System for Chinese Sign Language , 2001, Gesture Workshop.

[7]  Andrea J. van Doorn,et al.  Acceptability ratings by humans and automatic gesture recognition for variations in sign productions , 2008, 2008 8th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition.

[8]  John K. Tsotsos,et al.  Definition and recovery of kinematic features for recognition of American sign language movements , 2008, Image Vis. Comput..

[9]  Alex Pentland,et al.  Real-Time American Sign Language Recognition Using Desk and Wearable Computer Based Video , 1998, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[10]  W. Marslen-Wilson Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition , 1987, Cognition.

[11]  David Windridge,et al.  A Linguistic Feature Vector for the Visual Interpretation of Sign Language , 2004, ECCV.

[12]  Robyn A. Owens,et al.  Australian sign language recognition , 2005, Machine Vision and Applications.

[13]  Karl-Friedrich Kraiss,et al.  Robust Person-Independent Visual Sign Language Recognition , 2005, IbPRIA.

[14]  J.-M. Vannobel,et al.  A parallel and hierarchic framework to visual gesture recognition , 2001 .

[15]  E. A. Hendriks,et al.  Which Fragments of a Sign Enable Its Recognition? , 2009 .

[16]  Sotaro Kita,et al.  Movement Phase in Signs and Co-Speech Gestures, and Their Transcriptions by Human Coders , 1997, Gesture Workshop.

[17]  Christine Monikowski,et al.  LANGUAGE, COGNITION, AND THE BRAIN: INSIGHTS FROM SIGN LANGUAGE RESEARCH , 2004, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[18]  K. Emmorey Language, Cognition, and the Brain: Insights From Sign Language Research , 2001 .

[19]  Zeungnam Bien,et al.  Real-time recognition system of Korean sign language based on elementary components , 1997, Proceedings of 6th International Fuzzy Systems Conference.

[20]  Dimitris N. Metaxas,et al.  American sign language recognition: reducing the complexity of the task with phoneme-based modeling and parallel hidden markov models , 2003 .

[21]  Joseph B. Kruskall,et al.  The Symmetric Time-Warping Problem : From Continuous to Discrete , 1983 .

[22]  Surendra Ranganath,et al.  Automatic Sign Language Analysis: A Survey and the Future beyond Lexical Meaning , 2005, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[23]  K. Emmorey,et al.  Lexical Recognition in Sign Language: Effects of Phonetic Structure and Morphology , 1990, Perceptual and motor skills.

[24]  Andrea J. van Doorn,et al.  When and how well do people see the onset of gestures , 2007 .

[25]  Dimitris N. Metaxas,et al.  Handshapes and Movements: Multiple-Channel American Sign Language Recognition , 2003, Gesture Workshop.

[26]  E. A. Hendriks,et al.  Signs in Which Handshape and Hand Orientation Are Either Not Visible or Are Only Partially Visible: What Is the Consequence for Lexical Recognition? , 2009 .

[27]  Justine Cassell,et al.  Recovering the temporal structure of natural gesture , 1996, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition.