Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Sign Language Recognition, Generation, and Translation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Sign-language processing is an interdisciplinary problem whose biggest obstacle is a shortage of large, annotated, representative, and public sign language datasets, the paper argues from a 39-expert workshop synthesis.

desk verdict A transparent workshop synthesis whose interdisciplinary framing is genuinely useful; the 'data is the biggest obstacle' claim is plausible but rests on a disclosed, skewed participant pool. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08597 v1 pith:IEYNLIV3 submitted 2019-08-22 cs.CV cs.CLcs.CYcs.GRcs.HC

Danielle Bragg , Oscar Koller , Mary Bellard , Larwan Berke , Patrick Boudrealt , Annelies Braffort , Naomi Caselli , Matt Huenerfauth
show 4 more authors
Hernisa Kacorri Tessa Verhoef Christian Vogler Meredith Ringel Morris
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.CLcs.CYcs.GRcs.HC
keywords signlanguagerecognitiontranslationgenerationdatasetsDeafcommunityinterdisciplinaryresearchannotationstandardsavatars
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper synthesizes a two-day interdisciplinary workshop on sign language recognition, generation, and translation. It argues that these technologies are held back less by any single algorithm than by a shortage of large, annotated, representative, and public sign language datasets, which it calls arguably the biggest obstacle currently facing the field. It also makes the case that Deaf people must be involved at every stage of research and development, and that annotation standards, real-world application focus, and interface guidelines are needed. The intended consequence is that researchers across computer vision, NLP, graphics, HCI, linguistics, and Deaf studies coordinate their priorities instead of working in silos.

What carries the argument

The paper's central mechanism is the structured interdisciplinary workshop: 39 experts from universities and a technology company, including Deaf and hard-of-hearing participants, heard domain lectures, then split into five breakout groups covering datasets, recognition and computer vision, modeling and NLP, avatars and computer graphics, and UI/UX design, all answering a shared question set. The workshop output is organized into a landscape review, a challenge list, and five calls to action. The paper also uses a comparative table of sign-language versus speech corpora to make the data-scarcity argument quantitative, showing that sign corpora are orders of magnitude smaller in articulated content, annotations, vocabulary, and number of signers.

What would settle it

Train a current state-of-the-art continuous sign language recognition model on the largest existing public corpus and evaluate it on a held-out set of diverse, native-signing users. If word error rate approaches the level of human transcription under those conditions, then data size and representativeness would not be the field's biggest obstacle.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that sign language processing is an interdisciplinary problem whose progress is gated by data: sign language corpora are orders of magnitude smaller than speech corpora, typically containing fewer than 100,000 articulated signs and vocabularies around 1,500 signs, lacking signer diversity and continuous real-life signing, and not consistently annotated because sign languages have no standard written form. As a direct consequence, recognition systems cannot generalize to new signers or to depiction-rich natural signing, machine translation and NLP methods designed for text cannot be applied, and avatar generation still requires human intervention at every pipeline stage. The paper therefore presents five calls to action: involve Deaf team members throughout, focus on real-world applications, develop user-interface guidelines, create larger public datasets, and standardize annotation with supporting software.

Load-bearing premise

The paper treats the consensus of its 39 workshop participants — 21 from a single technology company and 10 Deaf or hard-of-hearing — as a representative expert view of the field's biggest challenges and priorities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If data scarcity is the binding constraint, dataset construction and curation should yield larger performance gains per effort than further algorithm development alone.
  • A standard annotation system would let separate teams combine corpora, effectively multiplying the training data available to any single group.
  • Systems built without Deaf involvement will likely fail adoption even when technically competent, as past sign-language glove projects illustrate.
  • Fully automatic sign generation from text will remain out of reach until smooth transitions and non-manual signals can be generated without human tuning.
  • The workshop method itself is offered as a repeatable model for other research fields fragmented into disciplinary silos.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: if the data bottleneck is real, the first team to release a large, consent-aware, signer-diverse corpus with standardized annotations should see a step-change in recognition and translation accuracy on signer-independent benchmarks; the paper does not make that prediction explicit.
  • Beyond the paper: a usable sign-language writing system would not only serve users but would produce the large parallel text corpus the authors say is missing, turning the annotation bottleneck into a natural by-product of everyday use; the paper describes these benefits separately but does not connect them as a flywheel.
  • Beyond the paper: a quantitative target can be inferred from the paper's speech comparison — an annotated corpus on the order of tens of millions of signs would be needed to approach the data scale that underpinned modern speech recognition; the paper stops short of naming such a target.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports the results of a two-day interdisciplinary workshop on sign language recognition, generation, and translation. It provides background on Deaf culture and sign language linguistics, reviews the current state of datasets, recognition, NLP/MT, avatars, and UI/UX, identifies pressing challenges in each area, and offers five calls to action. The paper's central load-bearing claim is that lack of large, annotated, representative, public datasets is the biggest obstacle currently facing the field, repeated in the conclusion as "data, data, data!".

Significance. If the results are read as a workshop-informed interdisciplinary perspective rather than as a statistically established field-wide ranking, the paper is genuinely useful. It gives newcomers a careful orientation, synthesizes a broad literature with traceable quantitative benchmarks (e.g., WER 22.9% and 39.6%, fingerspelling accuracy 42.8%, dataset vocabulary sizes in Table 1), and proposes concrete, actionable calls including Deaf involvement, real-world application focus, UI guidelines, larger public datasets, and annotation standardization. The inclusion of Deaf culture and linguistics alongside technical reviews is a strength. The main weakness is that the prioritization of data over other challenges rests on a single, industry-heavy workshop sample and is presented without explicit methodological caveats.

major comments (2)
  1. [Contributions; Conclusion] The paper's central prioritization—"Lack of data ... is arguably the biggest obstacle currently facing the field" and the concluding "data, data, data!"—is presented as a field-level finding, but the evidence base is the discussion of 39 workshop participants, 21 from a single technology company and only 10 Deaf or hard-of-hearing. The Q2 sections identify several comparably severe obstacles (depiction and annotation difficulty, generalization to unseen signers, avatar acceptance, absence of UI/UX guidelines, language/dialect choice), and the paper does not report any ranking or structured comparison showing that data scarcity outweighs them. This is load-bearing because the stated contribution is to help researchers "prioritize efforts." I recommend either reframing the claim as the workshop participants' perspective, adding a limitations paragraph on the sample, or supplementing with a broader stakeholder consultation.
  2. [Method] The Method section describes the workshop structure but not the synthesis procedure used to convert breakout discussions into the paper's Q2/Q3 findings. There is no account of how the five groups' outputs were aggregated, how disagreements among participants were resolved, or whether any ranking or voting occurred. As a result, readers cannot determine whether the stated "biggest challenges" and calls to action reflect a reproducible consensus procedure or the organizers' post-hoc synthesis. Please document the analysis steps or explicitly label the findings as the authors' interpretation of the workshop.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Q3] In the Application Domain paragraph, "intermediary goals that which will ultimately inform end-to-end systems" contains a grammatical error; "that which" should be "that."
  2. [Q2] The heading "Public Motion-Capture Datasets Many motion-capture datasets..." runs directly into the following sentence; insert a period or newline between the heading and the text.
  3. [Q1] The WER values 22.9% and 39.6% are not explicitly tied to the RWTH-PHOENIX benchmark described in the preceding sentence; please state the dataset and evaluation protocol so readers can reproduce or interpret the comparison.
  4. [Table 1] The header "V ocabulary" contains an extraneous space, and the caption would benefit from explicitly noting which rows are signer-independent and how "real-life" was determined.
  5. [References] Reference [81] lists "Face an Gesture Recognition"; this should read "Face and Gesture Recognition."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: this paper is a qualitative interdisciplinary workshop report whose central "data is the biggest obstacle" claim is a stakeholder judgment supported by external corpus-size comparisons, not a fitted or self-referential result.

full rationale

I examined the paper's derivation chain. The paper makes no formal derivation or quantitative prediction; it synthesizes a two-day workshop into a review, a challenge list, and calls to action. The central asserted contribution, "Lack of data (in particular large, annotated, representative, public datasets) is arguably the biggest obstacle currently facing the field," is supported by independently published corpus information in Table 1 and by the sign-language-versus-speech comparison in Table 2, which draws on external resources. Recognition figures such as a WER of 22.9% and 39.6% are attributed to published papers, including some co-authored by workshop participants, but these are peer-reviewed, externally validated measurements rather than re-statements of the present paper's assumptions. The "data, data, data!" conclusion is a rhetorical call to action derived from that synthesis, not a prediction fitted to a subset of data. The workshop's composition (39 participants, 21 from one company, 10 Deaf or hard of hearing) is a legitimate limitation on the generalizability of the priority ranking, but that is a sampling and external-validity concern, not circularity: the consensus is not defined in terms of the paper's conclusions, and no fitted parameter, equation, or imported uniqueness theorem forces the result. Self-citations appear where authors' own prior datasets and systems are used as state-of-the-art examples, but these citations are not load-bearing in a circular sense; they point to external published benchmarks and data resources. I therefore find no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a position paper; it introduces no free parameters or invented entities. Its claims rest on background assumptions from linguistics and machine learning, plus value judgments about the role of the Deaf community.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Sign languages are natural, fully structured languages distinct from spoken languages.
    This linguistic result, traced to Stokoe and later work, underpins the paper's argument that sign language processing must model language structure, not just gestures.
  • domain assumption Data scarcity is the primary bottleneck for sign language processing.
    The paper asserts this in the Contributions section based on comparing corpus sizes with speech corpora; it is an inference, not an experimentally tested claim.
  • domain assumption Deaf community involvement is necessary for building acceptable and useful systems.
    Call 1 states this as essential, but the paper provides no empirical evidence beyond anecdote and cultural reasoning.
  • domain assumption A standardized annotation system can be designed without losing essential linguistic information.
    Call 5 recommends standardization while the paper itself notes that any writing system abstracts away live language; the feasibility is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sign Language Recognition, Generation, and Translation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IEYNLIV3

@misc{pith2026190808597,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sign Language Recognition, Generation, and Translation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IEYNLIV3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08597}
}
read the original abstract

Developing successful sign language recognition, generation, and translation systems requires expertise in a wide range of fields, including computer vision, computer graphics, natural language processing, human-computer interaction, linguistics, and Deaf culture. Despite the need for deep interdisciplinary knowledge, existing research occurs in separate disciplinary silos, and tackles separate portions of the sign language processing pipeline. This leads to three key questions: 1) What does an interdisciplinary view of the current landscape reveal? 2) What are the biggest challenges facing the field? and 3) What are the calls to action for people working in the field? To help answer these questions, we brought together a diverse group of experts for a two-day workshop. This paper presents the results of that interdisciplinary workshop, providing key background that is often overlooked by computer scientists, a review of the state-of-the-art, a set of pressing challenges, and a call to action for the research community.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Perspectives on Capturing Emotional Expressiveness in Sign Language

    cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Interviews with eight signers show that emotional meaning in sign language comes from manual and non-manual cues built into the grammar, so translation tools should model faces, bodies, and signing dynamics, not just signs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

141 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Nicoletta Adamo-Villani and Ronnie B. Wilbur. 2015. ASL-Pro: American Sign Language Animation with Prosodic Elements. In Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Access to Interaction, Margherita Antona and Constantine Stephanidis (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 307–318

    2015

  2. [2]

    M Ebrahim Al-Ahdal and Md Tahir Nooritawati. 2012. Review in sign language recognition systems. In 2012 IEEE Symposium on Computers & Informatics (ISCI). IEEE, 52–57

    2012

  3. [3]

    Sedeeq Al-khazraji, Larwan Berke, Sushant Kafle, Peter Yeung, and Matt Huenerfauth. 2018. Modeling the Speed and Timing of American Sign Language to Generate Realistic Animations. In Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. ACM, 259–270

    2018

  4. [4]

    Anwar AlShammari, Asmaa Alsumait, and Maha Faisal

  5. [5]

    UN General Assembly. 2006. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. GA Res 61 (2006), 106

    2006

  6. [6]

    British Deaf Association. 2015. George Veditz Quote -

    2015

  7. [7]

    J Andrew Bangham, SJ Cox, Ralph Elliott, JRW Glauert, Ian Marshall, Sanja Rankov, and Mark Wells. 2000. Virtual signing: Capture, animation, storage and transmission-an overview of the visicast project. (2000)

    2000

  8. [8]

    H-Dirksen L Bauman. 2004. Audism: Exploring the Metaphysics of Oppression. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education 9, 2 (2004), 239–246

    2004

Show all 141 references
  1. [9]

    H-Dirksen L Bauman and Joseph J Murray. 2014. Deaf Gain: Raising the Stakes for Human Diversity. U of Minnesota Press

    2014

  2. [10]

    Bastien Berret, Annelies Braffort, and others. 2016. Collecting and Analysing a Motion-Capture Corpus of French Sign Language. In Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages

    2016

  3. [11]

    Claudia Savina Bianchini, Fabrizio Borgia, Paolo Bottoni, and Maria De Marsico. 2012. SWift: a SignWriting improved fast transcriber. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces. ACM, 390–393

    2012

  4. [12]

    Annelies Braffort, Michael Filhol, Maxime Delorme, Laurence Bolot, Annick Choisier, and Cyril Verrecchia

  5. [13]

    Danielle Bragg, Raja Kushalnagar, and Richard Ladner

  6. [14]

    Danielle Bragg, Kyle Rector, and Richard E Ladner

  7. [15]

    Helene Brashear, Valerie Henderson, Kwang-Hyun Park, Harley Hamilton, Seungyon Lee, and Thad Starner

  8. [16]

    Helene Brashear, Thad Starner, Paul Lukowicz, and Holger Junker. 2003. Using Multiple Sensors for Mobile Sign Language Recognition. In 7th IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers. IEEE

    2003

  9. [17]

    In Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility

    Designing an Animated Character System for American Sign Language. In Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. ACM, 282–294

  10. [18]

    Diane Brentari. 2011. Handshape in Sign Language Phonology. Companion to phonology (2011), 195–222

    2011

  11. [19]

    Diane Brentari. 2018. Representing Handshapes in Sign Languages Using Morphological Templates1. Gebärdensprachen: Struktur, Erwerb, Verwendung13 (2018), 145

    2018

  12. [20]

    Diane Brentari, Jordan Fenlon, and Kearsy Cormier

  13. [21]

    Cihan Camgoz, Simon Hadfield, Oscar Koller, Hermann Ney, and Richard Bowden. 2018. Neural Sign Language Translation. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Salt Lake City, UT

    2018

  14. [22]

    Xiujuan Chai, Hanjie Wang, and Xilin Chen. 2014. The DEVISIGN Large Vocabulary of Chinese Sign Language Database and Baseline Evaluations. Technical Report. Key Lab of Intelligent Information Processing of Chinese Academy of Sciences. 00000

    2014

  15. [23]

    Diane Brentari. 1996. Trilled Movement: Phonetic Realization and Formal Representation. Lingua 98, 1-3 (1996), 43–71

    1996

  16. [24]

    Émilie Chételat-Pelé, Annelies Braffort, and J Véronis

  17. [25]

    Adrean Clark. 2012. How to Write American Sign Language. ASLwrite

    2012

  18. [26]

    Helen Cooper and Richard Bowden. 2010. Sign Language Recognition Using Linguistically Derived Sub-Units.... In LREC Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Corpora and Sign Language Technologies. Valetta, Malta, 57–61

    2010

  19. [27]

    Sign Language Phonology. (2018). DOI:http: //dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.117

    2018

  20. [28]

    Helen Cooper, Eng-Jon Ong, Nicolas Pugeault, and Richard Bowden. 2012. Sign Language Recognition Using Sub-Units. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 13, 1 (2012), 2205–2231

    2012

  21. [29]

    Crasborn

    Onno A. Crasborn. 2015. Transcription and Notation Methods. In Research Methods in Sign Language Studies. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 74–88. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118346013.ch5

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    Charayaphan and A

    C. Charayaphan and A. E. Marble. 1992. Image Processing System for Interpreting Motion in American Sign Language. Journal of Biomedical Engineering 14, 5 (Sept. 1992), 419–425. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0141-5425(92)90088-3

    1992 doi

  23. [31]

    Nils Dahlbäck, Arne Jönsson, and Lars Ahrenberg. 1993. Wizard of Oz studiesâ ˘AˇTwhy and how. Knowledge-based systems 6, 4 (1993), 258–266

    1993

  24. [32]

    Maksym Davydov and Olga Lozynska. 2017. Information system for translation into Ukrainian sign language on mobile devices. In 2017 12th International Scientific and Technical Conference on Computer Sciences and Information Technologies (CSIT), V ol. 1. IEEE, 48–51

    2017

  25. [33]

    Philippe Dreuw and Hermann Ney. 2008. Towards automatic sign language annotation for the elan tool. In Workshop Programme. 50

    2008

  26. [34]

    Paul Dudis. 2004. Depiction of events in ASL: Conceptual integration of temporal components. (2004)

    2004

  27. [35]

    Helen Cooper, Brian Holt, and Richard Bowden. 2011. Sign Language Recognition. In Visual Analysis of Humans. Springer, 539–562

    2011

  28. [36]

    Richard Clark Eckert and Amy June Rowley. 2013. Audism: A Theory and Practice of Audiocentric Privilege. Humanity & Society 37, 2 (2013), 101–130

    2013

  29. [37]

    Ralph Elliott, John RW Glauert, JR Kennaway, and Ian Marshall. 2000. The development of language processing support for the ViSiCAST project. In ASSETS, V ol. 2000. 4th

    2000

  30. [38]

    R. Cui, H. Liu, and C. Zhang. 2019. A Deep Neural Framework for Continuous Sign Language Recognition by Iterative Training. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 0 (2019), 1–1. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TMM.2018.2889563

    2019

  31. [39]

    Michael Erard. 2017. Why Sign-Language Gloves Don’t Help Deaf People. The Atlantic 9 (2017). https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/ 11/why-sign-language-gloves-dont-help-deaf-people/ 545441/

    2017

  32. [40]

    S. S. Fels and G. E. Hinton. 1993. Glove-Talk: A Neural Network Interface between a Data-Glove and a Speech Synthesizer. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 4, 1 (Jan. 1993), 2–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/72.182690

    1993 doi

  33. [41]

    Jens Forster, Christian Oberdörfer, Oscar Koller, and Hermann Ney. 2013. Modality Combination Techniques for Continuous Sign Language Recognition. In Iberian Conference on Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis (Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7887). Springer, Madeira, Portu...

    2013

  34. [42]

    Jens Forster, Christoph Schmidt, Thomas Hoyoux, Oscar Koller, Uwe Zelle, Justus Piater, and Hermann Ney. 2012. RWTH-PHOENIX-Weather: A Large V ocabulary Sign Language Recognition and Translation Corpus. In International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Istanbul...

    2012

  35. [43]

    Sarah Ebling and John Glauert. 2016. Building a Swiss German Sign Language avatar with JASigning and evaluating it among the Deaf community. Universal Access in the Information Society 15, 4 (01 Nov 2016), 577–587. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10209-015-0408-1

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    Timnit Gebru, Jamie Morgenstern, Briana Vecchione, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hanna Wallach, Hal Daumeé III, and Kate Crawford. 2018. Datasheets for datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.09010 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Ann E Geers, Christine M Mitchell, Andrea Warner-Czyz, Nae-Yuh Wang, Laurie S Eisenberg, CDaCI Investigative Team, and others. 2017. Early sign language exposure and cochlear implantation benefits. Pediatrics 140, 1 (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    Ralph Elliott, John RW Glauert, JR Kennaway, Ian Marshall, and Eva Safar. 2008. Linguistic modelling and language-processing technologies for Avatar-based sign language presentation. Universal Access in the Information Society 6, 4 (2008), 375–391

    2008

  39. [47]

    Neil Stephen Glickman. 1993. Deaf Identity Development: Construction and Validation of a Theoretical Model. (1993)

    1993

  40. [48]

    Gary J. Grimes. 1983. Digital Data Entry Glove Interface Device. (Nov. 1983). US Patent

    1983

  41. [49]

    Kirsti Grobel and Marcell Assan. 1997. Isolated sign language recognition using hidden Markov models. In 1997 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Computational Cybernetics and Simulation, V ol. 1. IEEE, 162–167

    1997

  42. [50]

    Thomas Hanke. 2004. HamNoSys-representing sign language data in language resources and language processing contexts. In LREC, V ol. 4. 1–6

    2004

  43. [51]

    Jens Forster, Christoph Schmidt, Oscar Koller, Martin Bellgardt, and Hermann Ney. 2014. Extensions of the Sign Language Recognition and Translation Corpus RWTH-PHOENIX-Weather. InInternational Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Reykjavik, Island, 1911–1916

    2014

  44. [52]

    Alexis Heloir, Sylvie Gibet, Franck Multon, and Nicolas Courty. 2005. Captured Motion Data Processing for Real Time Synthesis of Sign Language. In International Gesture Workshop. Springer, 168–171

    2005

  45. [53]

    Hynek Hermansky. 2013. Multistream recognition of speech: Dealing with unknown unknowns. Proc. IEEE 101, 5 (2013), 1076–1088

    2013

  46. [54]

    Sylvie Gibet, Nicolas Courty, Kyle Duarte, and Thibaut Le Naour. 2011. The SignCom system for data-driven animation of interactive virtual signers: Methodology and Evaluation. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 1, 1 (2011), 6

    2011

  47. [55]

    Matt Huenerfauth, Elaine Gale, Brian Penly, Sree Pillutla, Mackenzie Willard, and Dhananjai Hariharan

  48. [56]

    Matt Huenerfauth and V Hanson. 2009. Sign language in the interface: access for deaf signers. Universal Access Handbook. NJ: Erlbaum 38 (2009)

    2009

  49. [57]

    Matt Huenerfauth and Hernisa Kacorri. 2014. Release of Experimental Stimuli and Questions for Evaluating Facial Expressions in Animations of American Sign Language. In Proceedings of the the 6th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Beyond the Manual...

    2014

  50. [58]

    Matt Huenerfauth, Mitch Marcus, and Martha Palmer

  51. [59]

    Dhananjai Hariharan, Sedeeq Al-khazraji, and Matt Huenerfauth. 2018. Evaluation of an English Word Look-Up Tool for Web-Browsing with Sign Language Video for Deaf Readers. In International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 205–215

    2018

  52. [60]

    Tom Humphries. 1975. Audism: The Making of a Word. Unpublished essay (1975)

    1975

  53. [61]

    Saba Joudaki, Dzulkifli bin Mohamad, Tanzila Saba, Amjad Rehman, Mznah Al-Rodhaan, and Abdullah Al-Dhelaan. 2014. Vision-based sign language classification: a directional review. IETE Technical Review 31, 5 (2014), 383–391

    2014

  54. [62]

    Jie Huang, Wengang Zhou, Qilin Zhang, Houqiang Li, and Weiping Li. 2018. Video-Based Sign Language Recognition without Temporal Segmentation. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second {AAAI} Conference on Artificial Intelligence. New Orleans, Louisiana, USA

    2018

  55. [63]

    Hernisa Kacorri and Matt Huenerfauth. 2016. Continuous Profile Models in ASL Syntactic Facial Expression Synthesis. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, Ber...

    2016 doi

  56. [64]

    Hernisa Kacorri, Matt Huenerfauth, Sarah Ebling, Kasmira Patel, Kellie Menzies, and Mackenzie Willard

  57. [65]

    Avi C. Kak. 2002. Purdue RVL-SLLL ASL Database for Automatic Recognition of American Sign Language. In Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI ’02). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 167–172. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/...

    2002 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Kostas Karpouzis, George Caridakis, S-E Fotinea, and Eleni Efthimiou. 2007. Educational resources and implementation of a Greek sign language synthesis architecture. Computers & Education 49, 1 (2007), 54–74

    2007

  59. [67]

    Jonathan Keane, Diane Brentari, and Jason Riggle. 2012. Coarticulation in ASL Fingerspelling. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, V ol. 42

    2012

  60. [68]

    Generating American Sign Language classifier predicates for English-to-ASL machine translation. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania

  61. [69]

    Matt Huenerfauth, Liming Zhao, Erdan Gu, and Jan Allbeck. 2007. Evaluating American Sign Language Generation Through the Participation of Native ASL Signers. In Proceedings of the 9th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Assets ’07). ACM, New ...

    2007

  62. [70]

    Michael Kipp. 2017. Anvil. (2017). https://www.anvil-software.org/ Accessed 2019-04-29

    2017

  63. [71]

    Michael Kipp, Quan Nguyen, Alexis Heloir, and Silke Matthes. 2011. Assessing the Deaf User Perspective on Sign Language Avatars. In The proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility. ACM, 107–114

    2011

  64. [72]

    Hamid Reza Vaezi Joze and Oscar Koller. 2018. MS-ASL: A Large-Scale Data Set and Benchmark for Understanding American Sign Language. arXiv:1812.01053 [cs] (Dec. 2018)

    2018 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Oscar Koller, Hermann Ney, and Richard Bowden. 2016. Deep Hand: How to Train a CNN on 1 Million Hand Images When Your Data Is Continuous and Weakly Labelled. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Las Vegas, NV , USA, 3793–3802

    2016

  66. [74]

    Oscar Koller, Sepehr Zargaran, and Hermann Ney. 2017. Re-Sign: Re-Aligned End-To-End Sequence Modelling With Deep Recurrent CNN-HMMs. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Honolulu, HI, USA, 4297–4305

    2017

  67. [75]

    ACM Trans

    Regression Analysis of Demographic and Technology-Experience Factors Influencing Acceptance of Sign Language Animation. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 10, 1, Article 3 (April 2017), 33 pages. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3046787

    2017 doi

  68. [76]

    Oscar Koller, Sepehr Zargaran, Hermann Ney, and Richard Bowden. 2018. Deep Sign: Enabling Robust Statistical Continuous Sign Language Recognition via Hybrid CNN-HMMs. International Journal of Computer Vision 126, 12 (Dec. 2018), 1311–1325. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11263...

    2018 doi

  69. [77]

    Reiner Konrad. 2012. Sign language corpora survey. (2012). https://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/dgs-korpus/ files/inhalt_pdf/SL-Corpora-Survey_update_2012.pdf

    2012

  70. [78]

    Harlan Lane. 2017. A Chronology of the Oppression of Sign Language in France and the United States. In Recent perspectives on American Sign Language. Psychology Press, 119–161

    2017

  71. [79]

    Elizabeth Keating, Terra Edwards, and Gene Mirus

  72. [80]

    Journal of Pragmatics 40, 6 (2018), 1067–1081

    Cybersign and new Proximities: Impacts of New Communication Technologies on Space and Language. Journal of Pragmatics 40, 6 (2018), 1067–1081

    2018

  73. [81]

    Rafiqul Zaman Khan and Noor Adnan Ibraheem. 2012. Hand Gesture Recognition: a Literature Review. International journal of artificial Intelligence & Applications 3, 4 (2012), 161

    2012

  74. [82]

    Pengfei Lu and Matt Huenerfauth. 2010. Collecting a motion-capture corpus of American Sign Language for data-driven generation research. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Speech and Language Processing for Assistive Technologies. Association for Computational Li...

    2010

  75. [83]

    Silke Matthes, Thomas Hanke, Anja Regen, Jakob Storz, Satu Worseck, Eleni Efthimiou, Athanasia-Lida Dimou, Annelies Braffort, John Glauert, and Eva Safar. 2012. Dicta-Sign–building a multilingual sign language corpus. In Proc. of the 5th Workshop on the Representation and Proc...

    2012

  76. [84]

    Oscar Koller, Necati Cihan Camgoz, Hermann Ney, and Richard Bowden. 2019. Weakly Supervised Learning with Multi-Stream CNN-LSTM-HMMs to Discover Sequential Parallelism in Sign Language Videos. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 0 (2019), 15

    2019

  77. [85]

    Carolyn McCaskill, Ceil Lucas, Robert Bayley, and Joseph Hill. 2011. The hidden treasure of Black ASL: Its history and structure. Structure 600 (2011), 83726

    2011

  78. [86]

    Masahiro Mori, Karl F MacDorman, and Norri Kageki

  79. [87]

    Oscar Koller, Sepehr Zargaran, Hermann Ney, and Richard Bowden. 2016. Deep Sign: Hybrid CNN-HMM for Continuous Sign Language Recognition. In British Machine Vision Conference. York, UK

    2016

  80. [88]

    University of Science and SLR Group Technology of China, Multimedia Computing & Communication. 2019. Chinese Sign Language Recognition Dataset. (2019). http://home.ustc.edu.cn/~pjh/dataset/cslr/index.html Accessed 2019-04-29

    2019

  81. [89]

    World Federation of the Deaf. 2018. Our Work. (2018). http://wfdeaf.org/our-work/ Accessed 2019-03-26

    2018

  82. [90]

    Mariusz Oszust and Marian Wysocki. 2013. Polish sign language words recognition with kinect. In 2013 6th International Conference on Human System Interactions (HSI). IEEE, 219–226

    2013

  83. [91]

    Simon Lang, Marco Block, and Raúl Rojas. 2012. Sign language recognition using kinect. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing. Springer, 394–402

    2012

  84. [92]

    Seungyon Lee, Valerie Henderson, Harley Hamilton, Thad Starner, Helene Brashear, and Steven Hamilton

  85. [93]

    Prillwitz, R

    S. Prillwitz, R. Leven, H. Zienert, R. Zienert, and T. Hanke. 1989. HamNoSys. Version 2.0. Signum, Hamburg

    1989

  86. [94]

    Rung-Huei Liang and Ming Ouhyoung. 1998. A Real-Time Continuous Gesture Recognition System for Sign Language. In Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Face an Gesture Recognition. Nara, Japan, 558–567

    1998

  87. [95]

    Jason Rodolitz, Evan Gambill, Brittany Willis, Christian V ogler, and Raja Kushalnagar. 2019. Accessibility of voice-activated agents for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal on Technology and Persons with Disabilities 7 (2019)

    2019

  88. [96]

    Wendy Sandler. 2006. Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge University Press

    2006

  89. [97]

    Rachel I Mayberry and Robert Kluender. 2018. Rethinking the critical period for language: New insights into an old question from American Sign Language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 21, 5 (2018), 886–905

    2018

  90. [98]

    Christoph Schmidt, Oscar Koller, Hermann Ney, Thomas Hoyoux, and Justus Piater. 2013a. Enhancing Gloss-Based Corpora with Facial Features Using Active Appearance Models. In International Symposium on Sign Language Translation and Avatar Technology, V ol. 2. Chicago, IL, USA

  91. [99]

    Christoph Schmidt, Oscar Koller, Hermann Ney, Thomas Hoyoux, and Justus Piater. 2013b. Using Viseme Recognition to Improve a Sign Language Translation System. In International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation. Heidelberg, Germany, 197–203

  92. [100]

    Jérémie Segouat and Annelies Braffort. 2009. Toward the study of sign language coarticulation: methodology proposal. In Proceedings of the Second International Conferences on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions, Cancun, 2009. 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACHI.2009.25

    2009 doi

  93. [101]

    GRS Murthy and RS Jadon. 2009. A Review of Vision Vased Hand Gestures Recognition. International Journal of Information Technology and Knowledge Management 2, 2 (2009), 405–410

    2009

  94. [102]

    ShuR. 2013. SLinto Dictionary. (2013). http://slinto.com/us/ Accessed 2019-04-29

    2013

  95. [103]

    Signing Savvy

    LLC. Signing Savvy. 2019. SigningSavvy. (2019). https://www.signingsavvy.com/ Accessed 2019-05-02

    2019

  96. [104]

    Robert Sparrow. 2005. Defending deaf culture: The case of cochlear implants. Journal of Political Philosophy 13, 2 (2005), 135–152

    2005

  97. [105]

    Cemil Oz and Ming C. Leu. 2011. American Sign Language Word Recognition with a Sensory Glove Using Artificial Neural Networks. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 24, 7 (Oct. 2011), 1204–1213. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2011.06.015

    2011 doi

  98. [106]

    Helen Petrie, Wendy Fisher, Kurt Weimann, and Gerhard Weber. 2004. Augmenting icons for deaf computer users. In CHI’04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1131–1134

    2004

  99. [107]

    W. C. Stokoe, D. Casterline, and C. Croneberg. 1965. A Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles. Linstok Press

    1965

  100. [108]

    Jeanne Reis, Erin T Solovey, Jon Henner, Kathleen Johnson, and Robert Hoffmeister. 2015. ASL CLeaR: STEM education tools for deaf students. In Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility. ACM, 441–442

    2015

  101. [109]

    Sutton and Deaf Action Committee for Sign Writing

    V . Sutton and Deaf Action Committee for Sign Writing

  102. [110]

    Shinichi Tamura and Shingo Kawasaki. 1988. Recognition of Sign Language Motion Images. Pattern Recognition 21, 4 (1988), 343–353. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0031-3203(88)90048-9

    1988 doi

  103. [111]

    Johan Schalkwyk, Doug Beeferman, Françoise Beaufays, Bill Byrne, Ciprian Chelba, Mike Cohen, Maryam Kamvar, and Brian Strope. 2010. Google search by voice: A case study. In Advances in speech recognition. Springer, 61–90

    2010

  104. [112]

    The Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics The language Archive. 2018. ELAN. (2018). https: //tla.mpi.nl/tools/tla-tools/elan/elan-description/ Accessed 2019-04-29

    2018

  105. [113]

    Uebersax, J

    D. Uebersax, J. Gall, M. Van den Bergh, and L. Van Gool. 2011. Real-Time Sign Language Letter and Word Recognition from Depth Data. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops (ICCV Workshops). 383–390. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICCVW.2011.6130267

    2011

  106. [114]

    Els Van der Kooij. 2002. Phonological Categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands: The Role of Phonetic Implementation and Iconicity. Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics

    2002

  107. [115]

    B. Shi, A. M. Del Rio, J. Keane, J. Michaux, D. Brentari, G. Shakhnarovich, and K. Livescu. 2018. American Sign Language Fingerspelling Recognition in the Wild. In 2018 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT). 145–152. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SLT.2018.8639639

    2018

  108. [116]

    Tony Veale, Alan Conway, and Bróna Collins. 1998. The challenges of cross-modal translation: English-to-Sign-Language translation in the Zardoz system. Machine Translation 13, 1 (1998), 81–106

    1998

  109. [117]

    Paranjape Ketki Vijay, Naphade Nilakshi Suhas, Chafekar Suparna Chandrashekhar, and Deshpande Ketaki Dhananjay. 2012. Recent developments in sign language recognition: A review. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Eng. Commun. Technol1, 2 (2012), 21–26

    2012

  110. [118]

    von Agris and K.-F

    U. von Agris and K.-F. Kraiss. 2007. Towards a Video Corpus for Signer-Independent Continuous Sign Language Recognition. In GW 2007 The 7th International Workshop on Gesture in Human-Computer Interaction and Simulation, Sales Dias and Jota (Eds.). Lisbon, Portugal, 10–11

    2007

  111. [119]

    Starner and A

    T. Starner and A. Pentland. 1995. Real-Time American Sign Language Recognition from Video Using Hidden Markov Models. In International Symposium on Computer Vision. 265–270

    1995

  112. [120]

    William C. Stokoe. 1960. Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf. Studies in linguistics: Occasional papers 8 (1960)

    1960

  113. [121]

    Alexandros Yeratziotis. 2013. Sign Short Message Service (SSMS). (2013). http://www.ssmsapp.com/ Accessed 2019-04-29

    2013

  114. [122]

    Jesus Suarez and Robin R Murphy. 2012. Hand Gesture Recognition with Depth Images: A Review. In 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: the 21st IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, 411–417

    2012

  115. [123]

    Zahoor Zafrulla, Helene Brashear, Thad Starner, Harley Hamilton, and Peter Presti. 2011b. American Sign Language Recognition with the Kinect. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI ’11). ACM, New York, NY , USA, 279–286. DOI: http://...

  116. [124]

    Morteza Zahedi, Philippe Dreuw, David Rybach, Thomas Deselaers, Jan Bungeroth, and Hermann Ney

  117. [125]

    Liwei Zhao, Karin Kipper, William Schuler, Christian V ogler, Norman Badler, and Martha Palmer. 2000. A machine translation system from English to American Sign Language. In Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas. Springer, 54–67

    2000

  118. [126]

    Five Technologies. 2015. Five App. (2015). https://fiveapp.mobi/ Accessed 2019-04-29

    2015

  119. [130]

    Vcom3D. 2019. SigningAvatar. (2019). http://www.vcom3d.com/ Accessed 2019-04-29

    2019

  120. [134]

    Ronnie B Wilbur. 2000. Phonological and prosodic layering of nonmanuals in American Sign Language. The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima (2000), 215–244

    2000

  121. [135]

    Ying Wu and Thomas S Huang. 1999. Vision-based gesture recognition: A review. In International Gesture Workshop. Springer, 103–115

    1999

  122. [137]

    Zahoor Zafrulla, Helene Brashear, Peter Presti, Harley Hamilton, and Thad Starner. 2011a. CopyCat: an American sign language game for deaf children. In Face and Gesture 2011. IEEE, 647–647

    2011

  123. [140]

    In LREC Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Lexicographic Matters and Didactic Scenarios

    Continuous Sign Language Recognition - Approaches from Speech Recognition and Available Data Resources. In LREC Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Lexicographic Matters and Didactic Scenarios. Genoa, Italy, 21–24

  124. [1913]

    https://vimeo.com/132549587 Accessed 2019-04-22

    (2015). https://vimeo.com/132549587 Accessed 2019-04-22

    2015

  125. [2000]

    Deaf Action Committee (DAC)

    Sign Writing. Deaf Action Committee (DAC)

  126. [2005]

    In CHI’05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    A gesture-based American Sign Language Game for Deaf Children. In CHI’05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1589–1592

  127. [2006]

    In Proceedings of the 8th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility

    American sign language recognition in game development for deaf children. In Proceedings of the 8th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility. ACM, 79–86

  128. [2008]

    Sign Language Corpus Annotation: toward a new Methodology.. In LREC

  129. [2012]

    IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 19, 2 (2012), 98–100

    The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 19, 2 (2012), 98–100

    2012

  130. [2015]

    In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing

    A User-Powered American Sign Language Dictionary. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM, 1837–1848

  131. [2016]

    KAZOO: A Sign Language Generation Platform Based on Production Rules. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 15, 4 (Nov. 2016), 541–550. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10209-015-0415-2

    2016 doi

  132. [2017]

    ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS)10, 1 (2017), 2

    Evaluation of language feedback methods for student videos of american sign language. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS)10, 1 (2017), 2

    2017

  133. [2018]

    In 2018 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e)

    Building an Interactive E-Learning Tool for Deaf Children: Interaction Design Process Framework. In 2018 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e). IEEE, 85–90

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.