Advertisement

Sign Language Conversion Tool (SLCTooL) Between 30 World Sign Languages

  • A. S. C. S. SastryEmail author
  • P. V. V. Kishore
  • D. Anil Kumar
  • E. Kiran Kumar
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 77)

Abstract

This paper proposes to find similarity between sign language finger spellings of alphabets from 30 countries with computer vision and support vector machine classifier. A database of 30 countries sign language alphabets is created in laboratory conditions with nine test subjects per country. Binarization of sign images and subsequent feature extraction with histogram of oriented gradients gives a feature vector. Classification with support vector machine provides insight into the similarity between world sign languages. The results show a similarity of 61% between Indian sign language and Bangladesh sign language belonging to the same continent, whereas the similarity is 11 and 7% with American and French sign languages in different continents. The overall classification rate of multiclass support vector machine is 95% with histogram of oriented gradient features when compared to other feature types. Cross-validation of the classifier is performed by finding an image structural similarity measure with Structural Similarity Index Measure.

Keywords

Sign language recognition World sign languages comparison Feature extraction Support vector machines Sign−to−sign translator 

References

  1. 1.
    Leite, F.O., et al.: Using Google Translate© in the hospital: a case report. Technology and Health Care (Preprint), pp. 1–4 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheriton, D.R.: Interpreter-based program language translator using embedded interpreter types and variables. Google Patents (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huang, Y.-M., Shadiev, R., Hwang, W.-Y.: Investigating the effectiveness of speech-to-text recognition applications on learning performance and cognitive load. Comput. Educ. 101, 15–28 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liang, C.-W., Juang, C.-F.: Moving object classification using local shape and HOG features in wavelet-transformed space with hierarchical SVM classifiers. Appl. Soft Comput. 28, 483–497 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee, S.-H., et al.: An efficient selection of HOG feature for SVM classification of vehicle. In: 2015 International Symposium on Consumer Electronics (ISCE). IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Galar, M., et al.: An overview of ensemble methods for binary classifiers in multi-class problems: experimental study on one-vs-one and one-vs-all schemes. Pattern Recognit. 44(8), 1761–1776 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang, X., Ding, S., Sun, T.: Multi-class LSTMSVM based on optimal directed acyclic graph and shuffled frog leaping algorithm. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern. 7(2), 241–251 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bai, X., et al.: Learning ECOC code matrix for multiclass classification with application to glaucoma diagnosis. J. Med. Syst. 40(4), 1–10 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. S. C. S. Sastry
    • 1
    Email author
  • P. V. V. Kishore
    • 1
  • D. Anil Kumar
    • 1
  • E. Kiran Kumar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electronics and Communication EngineeringK L UniversityGuntur DistrictIndia

Personalised recommendations