Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 33 references

Continuous Saudi Sign Language Recognition: A Vision Transformer Approach

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces the first continuous Saudi Sign Language dataset, KAU-CSSL, with 5,810 videos of 85 medical sentences, plus a transformer model reporting 99.02% accuracy on seen signers and 77.71% on unseen signers.

desk verdict Real dataset potential, but the 'continuous' claim and the headline numbers need serious scrutiny before anyone builds on them. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03467 v1 pith:QHPKNFJY submitted 2025-09-03 cs.CL cs.AI

Soukeina Elhassen , Lama Al Khuzayem , Areej Alhothali , Ohoud Alzamzami , Nahed Alowaidi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords SaudiSignLanguagecontinuousrecognitionsentence-leveldatasettransformerencoderResNet-18bidirectionalLSTMsigner-independentevaluationmedical
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

The paper's goal is to close a resource gap: Arabic sign language research has mostly used isolated signs or a pan-Arab vocabulary, while Saudi Sign Language has had no continuous, sentence-level corpus. The authors introduce KAU-CSSL, a dataset of 5,810 videos in which 24 signers each perform 85 medical sentences three times, with an expert translator's reference video guaranteeing the same sign order and an expert review filtering out flawed takes. On top of this corpus they train KAU-SignTransformer, a model that extracts ResNet-18 frame features, models temporal order with a transformer encoder and bidirectional LSTM, and reports 99.02% accuracy when test signers were seen during training and 77.71% when they were not. If the dataset is accepted as genuine continuous SSL, it supplies a benchmark for sentence-level recognition, a first quantitative target for signer-independent performance, and an ablation showing which model components matter most.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the dataset itself: KAU-CSSL is a continuous sign language corpus, defined in contrast to the isolated-word corpora that dominate Arabic sign language research. Its two design controls are (1) a reference-video protocol in which an expert translator pre-records every sentence so that all 24 signers perform the same signs in the same order, and (2) an expert-review gate that discards takes with wrong speed, order, pauses, laughter, or extra signs. Those controls are what make the 85 labels trustworthy enough to train a classifier. The architecture used to demonstrate the corpus is a temporal video classifier: pretrained ResNet-18 per-frame features, lin

What would settle it

Record a held-out set of deaf-community signers, not shown the reference video, performing the same 85 sentences in natural conversation; if accuracy on that set falls far below 77.71%, the reported signer-independent result does not measure real-world generalization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Stated on the paper's own terms: continuous Saudi Sign Language is now a dataset-backed problem. KAU-CSSL contains 5,810 videos of 85 medical-communication sentences, each performed three times by each of 24 signers recruited from deaf, hard-of-hearing, and hearing participants; an expert translator recorded a reference video first, and participants imitated it so that sign order and vocabulary stayed fixed, after which sign-language experts rejected clips that were too slow, wrongly ordered, extraneous, or interrupted by laughter or talk. The recognition model samples 32 frames per video, passes each frame through a pretrained ResNet-18, adds sinusoidal positional encoding, applies a 3-laye

Load-bearing premise

Everything depends on the videos being genuine, fluent, correctly labeled Saudi Sign Language sentences rather than imitations of a reference clip, because the model is only learning to match expert-assigned labels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • KAU-CSSL provides a common evaluation set for continuous SSL, so future systems can be compared on the same 85 medical sentences and 5,810 videos.
  • The reported 99.02% signer-dependent accuracy establishes that a transformer-based video classifier can separate these sentence classes almost perfectly when signer identity is not a variable.
  • The 77.71% signer-independent result gives a first numerical target for generalizing continuous SSL to unseen signers.
  • The ablation shows pretrained ResNet-18 is the highest-value component, with a 3.47-point accuracy drop when randomly initialized, so transfer learning from generic image features is a sound default for small continuous sign corpora.
  • Misclassifications concentrate in visually similar and rarer sentences, such as 'oncologist' versus 'pediatrician' and short signs like 'doctor needed', which points to class balancing and finer temporal modeling as the next concrete improvements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct next experiment would test accuracy on a separate cohort of deaf signers who did not watch the reference video, since the training signers are 83% hearing and every take imitates a reference clip; that would show whether 77.71% holds outside the studio.
  • A per-sign evaluation that splits sentences into component signs would reveal whether the 99% figure reflects true sentence recognition or the model latching onto reusable sub-signs such as 'needed', which appear across many of the 85 classes.
  • The same four-phase protocol could be applied to other under-resourced sign languages or to new SSL domains such as legal and educational settings; adding word-by-word sign labels would turn the corpus from a classification benchmark into a translation benchmark.
  • A temporal-segmentation or keypoint-augmented version of the model is the obvious stress test for movement epenthesis, since the paper identifies transitions between signs as a core difficulty while the current model pools over uniformly sampled frames.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces KAU-CSSL, described as the first continuous Saudi Sign Language (SSL) dataset, containing videos of 85 medical-related sentence classes. It also proposes KAU-SignTransformer, a video-classification model composed of a pretrained ResNet-18 backbone, a Transformer encoder, and a bidirectional LSTM, reporting 99.02% signer-dependent accuracy and 77.71% signer-independent accuracy. The dataset was collected from 24 signers who imitated reference videos recorded by an expert translator; 83.33% of signers are hearing. The authors claim the dataset fills a gap in Arabic SL resources and that the model demonstrates effective continuous SSL recognition.

Significance. If the KAU-CSSL dataset is a valid continuous SSL corpus, it would fill a recognized gap in Arabic sign language resources, particularly for medical communication. The dataset is the paper's main contribution, and the reported accuracies are secondary to that contribution. The ablation study is useful, but it does not compensate for weaknesses in dataset validation and evaluation protocol. The model architecture is standard, so the significance hinges on whether the dataset is a genuine, reproducible, and accessible continuous signing corpus.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3, §4.1, §5] Dataset statistics are inconsistent across the manuscript. The abstract and Table 1 report 5,810 videos; §4.1 reports 5,879 videos; §5 reports training/validation/test sizes of 4,085/827/940 (total 5,852), while §4 reports 4,088/870/921 (total 5,879). Additionally, §3 states 24 signers performed each of 85 sentences three times, which would yield 6,120 videos, not 5,810; the per-class max/min/average counts (74/63/68) imply a different total again. Since the dataset is the central contribution, the correct counts and split definitions must be reconciled and precisely stated.
  2. [§3, Phase 3 and Phase 4] The claim that KAU-CSSL is a 'continuous' SSL dataset is not supported by the collection protocol. Phase 3 says participants watched an expert translator's reference video 'to ensure they used the exact gestures and followed the same sequence.' Phase 4 acceptance criteria check correct sign order, absence of pauses, and absence of extraneous signs, but do not verify natural continuous-signing phenomena such as co-articulation, movement epenthesis, rhythm, or non-manual markers. With 83.33% of signers being hearing, the productions may be imitative and staged rather than natural continuous signing. The paper must provide evidence, e.g., fluency assessment of signers, validation by deaf native signers, or annotation of continuous-signing phenomena, to substantiate the 'continuous' claim.
  3. [§5.1 and §4] The signer-dependent protocol is likely inflated by near-duplicate same-signer samples. The dataset records each signer performing each sentence three times, but the train/validation/test split is not described in terms of signer overlap. If the same signer's repetitions of the same sentence appear in both training and test, the 99.02% accuracy partly measures memorization of signer-specific idiosyncrasies. Specify whether the split is signer-disjoint, and report a signer-holdout evaluation or per-signer accuracy as a sanity check.
  4. [§4 and §4.2] The model description is internally inconsistent. §4 opens by saying the problem is formulated using 'a pre-trained VideoMAE model,' but §4.2 describes a ResNet-18 backbone with a Transformer encoder and BiLSTM, and the title/abstract call it a 'Vision Transformer.' This is not merely a wording issue; it obscures what architecture was actually evaluated. Correct the description and remove references to VideoMAE if it is not used.
  5. [§5.1 and §4.1] The signer-independent evaluation lacks essential detail and comparison. The paper does not state how the signer-independent split was constructed, how many signers were held out, or whether any same-signer repetitions leaked into the test set. A single architecture's 77.71% accuracy, without comparison to a standard baseline under the same protocol, is insufficient to support the claim that the model is effective for continuous SSL recognition. Provide the split details and at least one baseline comparison (e.g., I3D, VideoMAE, or CNN-LSTM).
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3, Phase 2] The sentence '85 distinct sentences, which comprise a lexicon of roughly 5,000 words' is implausible given sentences of 3–5 words; likely a numerical error.
  2. [§4.1] Typo: 'painful_slallowing' should be 'painful_swallowing'.
  3. [§5.1] The text switches between 'validation accuracy of 99.02%' and 'Test Accuracy: 99.02%'; clarify which set the headline number refers to.
  4. [References] References [13] and [16] appear to contain placeholder DOIs; references [5] and [9] seem to be the same article. Please verify and correct.
  5. [§3, Data Availability] The dataset is 'available upon request'; for a dataset contribution, consider a public release or a clear access procedure with ethical approval details.
  6. [Throughout] Numerous typos and grammatical errors (e.g., 'perfromance', 'resourses', 'domnstrate', 'phaze') require proofreading.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's claims are empirical and self-contained; dataset-validity concerns are correctness issues, not circularity.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain. The paper's contribution is empirical: it collects KAU-CSSL (Section 3), trains KAU-SignTransformer (Section 4), and reports held-out accuracy (Section 5). No equation defines a predicted quantity in terms of a fitted parameter and then calls that a prediction; the 99.02%/77.71% accuracies are measured on held-out splits of the same dataset, not fitted values presented as forecasts. The ablation study compares architectures on the same fixed test set, which is standard benchmarking, not circularity. The only self-citation, Al Khuzayem et al. [29] (Efhamni), appears in Related Work as background on isolated SSL; it is not used as evidence for KAU-CSSL's validity, for the model's design, or for the accuracy numbers. No uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked, and no ansatz is imported through citation. The 'first continuous SSL dataset' claim rests on a data-construction protocol (expert reference videos, acceptance criteria such as 'must not pause between words'); whether 83% hearing signers imitating a reference video yields natural continuous SSL is a real dataset-validity concern, but it concerns external validity, not a derivation that reduces to its own input. Consequently, no circular step can be quoted.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on standard deep-learning hyperparameters chosen by the authors and on three domain assumptions: label correctness, transferability of ImageNet features to sign language, and the validity of sentence-level classification as a continuous-recognition benchmark. No new theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • input_frames_T = 32
    Number of frames sampled per video; ablation shows 16 frames drops accuracy by 0.97%, so 32 is a hand-chosen hyperparameter.
  • transformer_layers = 3
    Number of transformer encoder layers; ablation shows 1 layer drops accuracy by 1.30%, so 3 chosen via validation.
  • attention_heads = 8
    Attention heads in transformer; ablation with 16 heads yields a 0.21% drop, so 8 chosen.
  • lstm_hidden_size = 128
    Hidden size per direction in BiLSTM; chosen without reported ablation.
  • learning_rate = 1e-4 (AdamW)
    Optimizer hyperparameter chosen by the authors; no search reported.
  • class_weights_wj = not reported numerically
    Class-weighted cross-entropy weights to address minor imbalance; values not given in the paper.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption ImageNet-pretrained ResNet-18 features transfer to sign language frames.
    Section 4.2 uses ResNet-18 initialized with ImageNet weights; the ablation shows a 3.47% drop when randomly initialized, indicating pretraining is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption The KAU-CSSL video labels (85 medical sentences) are correct and expert-verified.
    Section 3 Phase 4 says videos are reviewed by sign language experts; the whole accuracy measure assumes these labels are ground truth.
  • domain assumption Whole-video sentence classification is an appropriate proxy for continuous sign language recognition.
    The paper frames the task as continuous SLR but the model classifies entire videos; this presupposes that sentence-level labels capture continuous signing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Continuous Saudi Sign Language Recognition: A Vision Transformer Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QHPKNFJY

@misc{pith2026250903467,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Continuous Saudi Sign Language Recognition: A Vision Transformer Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QHPKNFJY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03467}
}
read the original abstract

Sign language (SL) is an essential communication form for hearing-impaired and deaf people, enabling engagement within the broader society. Despite its significance, limited public awareness of SL often leads to inequitable access to educational and professional opportunities, thereby contributing to social exclusion, particularly in Saudi Arabia, where over 84,000 individuals depend on Saudi Sign Language (SSL) as their primary form of communication. Although certain technological approaches have helped to improve communication for individuals with hearing impairments, there continues to be an urgent requirement for more precise and dependable translation techniques, especially for Arabic sign language variants like SSL. Most state-of-the-art solutions have primarily focused on non-Arabic sign languages, resulting in a considerable absence of resources dedicated to Arabic sign language, specifically SSL. The complexity of the Arabic language and the prevalence of isolated sign language datasets that concentrate on individual words instead of continuous speech contribute to this issue. To address this gap, our research represents an important step in developing SSL resources. To address this, we introduce the first continuous Saudi Sign Language dataset called KAU-CSSL, focusing on complete sentences to facilitate further research and enable sophisticated recognition systems for SSL recognition and translation. Additionally, we propose a transformer-based model, utilizing a pretrained ResNet-18 for spatial feature extraction and a Transformer Encoder with Bidirectional LSTM for temporal dependencies, achieving 99.02\% accuracy at signer dependent mode and 77.71\% accuracy at signer independent mode. This development leads the way to not only improving communication tools for the SSL community but also making a substantial contribution to the wider field of sign language.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03467 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pipeline of KAU-CSSL dataset creation: Recruit Signers, Select Sentences, Record Videos, and Process Data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sample of the dataset Maximum Minimum Average 0 20 40 60 80 74 63 68 No. of Videos No. of Videos per Class [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Number of Videos per Class in KAU-CSSL: Maximum (74), Minimum (63), Average (68). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hearing Diversity in KAU-CSSL: Deaf (11.11%), Hard of Hearing (5.56%), Hearing (83.33%). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Gender Diversity in KAU-CSSL Dataset: Male (65%) and Female (35%) Signers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Attire Diversity Among Female Participants in KAU-CSSL: Fully Visible Face (Hijab) (37.50%), Eyes Only [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Attire Diversity Among Male Participants in KAU-CSSL: Traditional Thob (22%), Head Cover [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Sample Sentence KAU-CSSL Dataset is unique in that it is the first continuous video dataset to include SSL. This pioneering effort represents a significant technological and research advancement in the field of SL. Phase 2: Select Sentences KAU-CSSL dataset consists of…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The setup of recording location • The signs must be at regular speed. • Participants must perform the signs correctly. • The signs must be in the correct order based on the reference video. • Participants must not pause between words to perform the sentence. • All clip…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Model architecture of KAU-SignTransformer for SSL recognition 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Training and Validation loss 5.1 Model Performance A validation accuracy of 99.02% in signer-dependent mode was achieved by the model in the testing phase. Early stopping began after 10 epochs with no improvements. High performance indicates ability to generalize well…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Confusion Matrix 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The similarity between ’Oncologist’ and ’Pediatrician’ sentences. (a) I want Oncologist (b) I want [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Deafness and Hearing Loss

    World Health Organization. Deafness and Hearing Loss. 2024. Available at: https://www.who.int/ news-room/fact-sheets/detail/deafness-and-hearing-loss . Accessed: June 2025

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Wadhawan and P

    A. Wadhawan and P. Kumar. Deep learning-based sign language recognition system for static signs. Neural Computing and Applications, 32:7957–7968, 2020. doi:10.1007/s00521-019-04691-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s00521-019-04691-5 2020

  3. [3]

    General Population and Housing Census 2022

    General Authority for Statistics, Saudi Arabia. General Population and Housing Census 2022. 2022. Available at: https://www.stats.gov.sa/en. Accessed: June 2025

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Luqman and E

    H. Luqman and E. S. M. El-Alfy. Towards hybrid multimodal manual and non-manual Arabic sign language recognition: MArSL database and pilot study. Electronics, 10(14):1–16, 2021. doi:10.3390/electronics10141730

    work page doi:10.3390/electronics10141730 2021

  5. [6]

    Rastgoo, K

    R. Rastgoo, K. Kiani, and S. Escalera. Sign language recognition: A deep survey.Expert Systems with Applications, 164:113794, 2020. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113794

    work page arXiv 2020

  6. [7]

    H. Luqman. ArabSign: A multi-modality dataset and benchmark for continuous Arabic sign language recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03951, 2022. 21 A PREPRINT - S EPTEMBER 10, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  7. [8]

    M. M. Balaha, S. El-Kady, H. M. Balaha, M. Salama, E. Emad, M. Hassan, and M. M. Saafan. A vision-based deep learning approach for independent-users Arabic sign language interpretation. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 82(5):6807–6826, 2023. doi:10.1007/s11042-022-13423-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11042-022-13423-9 2023

  8. [9]

    Alkhalifa et al

    N. Alkhalifa et al. Continuous Arabic sign language recognition models. Sensors, 25(9):2916, 2025. doi:10.3390/s25092916

    work page doi:10.3390/s25092916 2025

Show all 33 references
  1. [10]

    Al-Hammadi et al

    M. Al-Hammadi et al. Deep learning-based approach for sign language gesture recognition with efficient hand gesture representation. IEEE Access, 8:192527–192542, 2021. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3031440

    2021

  2. [11]

    Batnasan, M

    G. Batnasan, M. Gochoo, M. E. Otgonbold, F. Alnajjar, and T. K. Shih. ArSL21L: Arabic sign language letter dataset benchmarking and an educational avatar for metaverse applications. In 2022 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), pages 1814–1821, 2022. doi:10.11...

    2022

  3. [12]

    Elbadawy, M

    M. Elbadawy, M. Faisal, M. Mekhtiche, M. Bencherif, T. Alrayes, and G. Muhammad. Toward robust Arabic sign language recognition via vision transformers and local interpretable model-agnostic explanations integration. ScienceOpen, 2024. doi:10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-.PPB2U7I.v1

    2024 doi

  4. [13]

    A. M. Ahmed et al. Recent advances on deep learning for sign language recognition. ResearchGate, 2025. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.12345.67890

    2025

  5. [14]

    Adaloglou et al

    N. Adaloglou et al. A comprehensive guide to sign language recognition systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.01730, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Alsulaiman et al

    M. Alsulaiman et al. Facilitating Arabic sign language recognition using deep learning. Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences , 35(6):101567, 2023. doi:10.1016/j.jksuci.2023.101567

    2023

  7. [16]

    Bani Baker et al

    Q. Bani Baker et al. Image-based Arabic sign language recognition system using transfer deep learning models. Applied Computational Intelligence, 2023. doi:10.1155/2023/1234567

    2023 doi

  8. [17]

    Forster, C

    J. Forster, C. Schmidt, T. Hoyoux, O. Koller, U. Zelle, J. Piater, and H. Ney. RWTH-PHOENIX-Weather: A large vocabulary sign language recognition and translation corpus. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12) , page...

    2012

  9. [18]

    von Agris and K.-F

    U. von Agris and K.-F. Kraiss. SIGNUM database: Video corpus for signer-independent continuous sign language recognition. In sign-lang@LREC 2010, pages 243–246, 2010

    2010

  10. [19]

    Duarte, S

    A. Duarte, S. Palaskar, L. Ventura, D. Ghadiyaram, K. DeHaan, F. Metze, J. Torres, and X. Giro-i-Nieto. How2Sign: A large-scale multimodal dataset for continuous American sign language. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages...

    2021

  11. [20]

    Al-Hammadi, G

    M. Al-Hammadi, G. Muhammad, W. Abdul, M. Alsulaiman, M. A. Bencherif, and M. A. Mekhtiche. Hand gesture recognition for sign language using 3DCNN. IEEE Access, 8:79491–79509, 2020

    2020

  12. [21]

    H. Luqman. ArabSign: A Multi-modality Dataset and Benchmark for Continuous Arabic Sign Language Recognition. In 2023 IEEE 17th International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG) , pages 1–8, 2023

    2023

  13. [22]

    A. H. Al-Obodi, A. M. Al-Hanine, K. N. Al-Harbi, M. S. Al-Dawas, and A. A. Al-Shargabi. A Saudi Sign Language Recognition System based on Convolutional Neural Networks. Department of Information Technology, College of Computer, Qassim University, Buraydah, Saudi Arabia, 2020

    2020

  14. [23]

    Al-Hammadi, G

    M. Al-Hammadi, G. Muhammad, W. Abdul, M. Alsulaiman, and M. S. Hossain. Hand gesture recognition using 3D-CNN model. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, 9:95–101, 2019

    2019

  15. [24]

    Al-Hammadi, G

    M. Al-Hammadi, G. Muhammad, W. Abdul, M. Alsulaiman, M. A. Bencherif, T. S. Alrayes, H. Mathkour, and M. A. Mekhtiche. Deep learning-based approach for sign language gesture recognition with efficient hand gesture representation. IEEE Access, 8:192527–192542, 2020

    2020

  16. [25]

    Abdul, M

    W. Abdul, M. Alsulaiman, S. U. Amin, M. Faisal, G. Muhammad, F. R. Albogamy, M. A. Bencherif, and H. Ghaleb. Intelligent real-time Arabic sign language classification using attention-based inception and BiLSTM. Computers and Electrical Engineering , 95:107395, 2021

    2021

  17. [26]

    Materzynska, G

    J. Materzynska, G. Berger, I. Bax, and R. Memisevic. The Jester dataset: A large-scale video dataset of human gestures. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops , pages 0–0, 2019

    2019

  18. [27]

    Al-Hammadi, M

    M. Al-Hammadi, M. A. Bencherif, M. Alsulaiman, G. Muhammad, M. A. Mekhtiche, W. Abdul, Y . Alohali, T. S. Alrayes, H. Mathkour, M. Faisal, et al. Spatial Attention-Based 3D Graph Convolutional Neural Network for Sign Language Recognition. Sensors, 22:4558, 2022

    2022

  19. [28]

    B. A. Al-Mohimeed, H. O. Al-Harbi, G. S. Al-Dubayan, and A. A. Al-Shargabi. Dynamic Sign Language Recognition Based on Real-Time Videos. International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering , 18, 2022. 22 A PREPRINT - S EPTEMBER 10, 2025

    2022

  20. [29]

    Al Khuzayem, S

    L. Al Khuzayem, S. Shafi, S. Aljahdali, R. Alkhamesie, and O. Alzamzami. Efhamni: A Deep Learning-Based Saudi Sign Language Recognition Application. Sensors, 24:3112, 2024. doi:10.3390/s24103112

    2024 doi

  21. [30]

    Guide to Saudi Sign Language

    Saudi Sign Language Association. Guide to Saudi Sign Language. 2024. Available at: https://saudisla. org/programs/dictionary/. Accessed: 13/2/2024

    2024

  22. [31]

    J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei. ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 248–255, 2009

    2009

  23. [32]

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 770–778, 2016

    2016

  24. [33]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 5998–6008, 2017

    2017

  25. [34]

    Loshchilov and F

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2019. 23

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.