Real-Time Sign Language Interpretation for Inclusive Communication

Sign Language Recognition (SLR) has become an essential area of research due to its potential to promote understanding between the deaf and hearing communities through communication. This paper provides an in-depth study of various methodologies and models employed in SLR, focusing on Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN). We analyze their application to datasets from various sign languages, such as Arabic Sign Language (ArSL), American Sign Language (ASL), and British Sign Language (BSL), and explore how these models improve the recognition of dynamic, multi-dimensional hand gestures. This research not only advances the understanding of deep learning applications in sign language recognition but also addresses critical challenges in data processing and real-time applications, paving the way for inclusive technologies in informatics and human-computer interaction. Despite the progress in applying deep learning techniques to SLR, several challenges remain, particularly in dataset limitations, handling large vocabularies, and ensuring consistent performance across diverse environments and signers. The paper also investigates the broader applications of SLR, such as virtual reality, healthcare, education, and accessibility, and discusses the integration of SLR with human-computer interaction systems. Furthermore, it highlights current limitations in the field, such as difficulties with video data handling, the need for standard datasets, and issues related to training computational models. Finally, the paper outlines future research directions, including developing more robust SLR systems that can function effectively in uncontrolled environments, improving data collection methodologies, and creating real-time, user-friendly applications to assist the community of deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals.

The Shape of Air: American Sign Language as Narrative Prosthesis in 21st Century North American Media

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderFeature1 Apr 2003Serving Clients Who Use Sign Language Susanne Scott, and James H. Lee Susanne Scott Google Scholar More articles by this author and James H. Lee Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR1.08062003.6 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Many speech-language and hearing professionals now encounter clients who use sign languages as their primary mode of communication. Can these professionals serve these clients, or do they need to get interpreters or make referrals? ASHA is committed to meeting the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse populations. All too often “linguistically diverse” is assumed to refer to users of spoken languages other than English. However, individuals who use a signed language, whether American Sign Language (ASL) or some other sign system, are also linguistically diverse. It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine how many people in the United States use some form of sign language to communicate. It might be easier to try to determine the number of signing individuals that are seen in hearing and speech centers and in educational placements throughout the United States. In keeping with ASHA’s vision, it is important to ensure that there are an adequate number of speech-language and hearing professionals to serve this population. Although it may be necessary to use interpreters in some situations or locales or to make referrals to larger urban areas, programs, clinics, and schools throughout the country should be striving to better and more directly serve clients who use sign. The Population Clients who use a sign language/system are a very diverse population. Not only do these individuals differ in age, gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, and socio-economic status, but also in the sign language/system that they use. Often the sign language/system used is determined by the individual’s identity or, in the case of a child, the educational placement. An individual who identifies as a member of the deaf community/culture in the United States will most likely use American Sign Language. Individuals who depend on their residual hearing and identify as hard of hearing or hearing impaired, will most likely use an invented sign system (i.e., SEE II, Signed English) or more English-based sign. Children who are deaf or hard of hearing may use ASL, a sign system, or English-based sign as determined by the school’s educational/communication philosophy (see sidebar for definitions). Cultural and Linguistic Competence Cultural and linguistic competence can enhance clinical practice by: increasing the bond/relationship between the clinician and the client and the client’s significant others demonstrating respect and sensitivity enhancing service provision facilitating achievement of goals and carryover/generalization of skills And, importantly, it’s the right thing to do! The National Center for Cultural Competence ( www.georgetown.edu/ research/gucdc/ nccc/faqs.html) has identified six overarching reasons why cultural competence is important to health care providers. In brief, they are: 1. To respond to current and projected demographic changes in the United States 2. To eliminate long-standing disparities in the health status of people of diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds 3. To improve the quality of services and health outcomes 4. To meet legislative, regulatory, and accreditation mandates 5. To gain a competitive edge in the market place 6. To decrease the likelihood of liability/malpractice claims Strategies Clinicians who are able to sign should apply the following strategies in order to meet the communication needs of their clients: Respect the communication mode of your clients. The clinician should try to match the client’s mode of communication. Be willing to admit when you do not understand. Try not to “bluff” or use a passive behavior. Speech-language-hearing professionals should model appropriate communication strategies such as confirmation and repair strategies when the clinician is not able to understand the client’s signs. Use facial expressions and body movements with signs. Facial expressions and body movements are fundamental features of ASL. In spoken English, speakers often signal a question by using a rising vocal intonation. In ASL, users do so by raising the eyebrows and widening the eyes. ASL users may ask a question by tilting their bodies forward while signaling with their eyes and eyebrows. Try to be conceptually correct in the use of signs. Choose signs that appropriately convey the information you are trying to communicate. Remember each sign in a signed language/system is composed of a specific, unique combination of a hand shape, movement, palm orientation, and location. Changing any one of these aspects of the sign changes the meaning of the sign. Always fingerspell technical terms (e.g., audiogram, frequency) first before assigning a “made up” sign (e.g., “A” hand shape circling in front of the ear + sign for graph = audiogram; “F” hand shape moving like a “wave” from left to right = frequency). Always use visual aids to supplement your signs. Use pictures of the ear and the “audiogram of familiar sounds” to help explain unfamiliar concepts (e.g., type of hearing loss; sounds the client may never have heard). Working With an Interpreter If necessary, it may be best to obtain the services of a certified interpreter for the deaf. Certified interpreters follow a strict Code of Ethics developed by the Registry of Interpreters of the Deaf (RID). Interpreters can hold different types of RID certification. For example, a CI (Certificate of Interpretation) certificate indicates the interpreter can sign from English to ASL and ASL to English. A CT (Certificate of Transliteration) certificate means the interpreter has been evaluated and is proficient in interpreting from spoken English to a more English-based sign and vice versa. Some RID interpreters hold both certificates. In addition, the National Association of the Deaf also certifies interpreters using a system with varying skill levels. Finally, some states also have certification programs and tests for interpreters. It is essential to find out what is required in your area and obtain the services of qualified interpreters. When working with an interpreter, speech-language or hearing professionals should remember that they are consumers of interpreting services. Be sure to establish what you and your signing client need from the interpreter. For example, some signing individuals have intelligible speech and the interpreter would not need to voice what the signer expresses. Other times the speech may not be intelligible enough and the interpreter may need to voice the intent of the signing client. Finally, it is important to remember that the interpreter is a conduit of information between the clinician and the client. The signing client is addressed directly. The client should not be addressed through the interpreter (i.e., “Tell her…”). Instead the professional should speak directly to the client and allow the interpreter to convey the information. To facilitate this, it is often helpful to position the interpreter next to the hearing or speech-language professional and across from the signing client. This allows for a good visual environment. The signing client can see the interpreter and the professional. During interactions as much eye contact as possible should be maintained with the client. The signing client will need to divide the visual attention between the professional and the interpreter but the professional should remain focused on the client. Definitions American Sign Language (ASL) ASL is a complete, complex language that incorporates the use of hand shapes, position, palm orientation and movement, facial expressions, body movements and postures, and gestures and other visual cues to form its words. It is completely separate from English. ASL has its own rules for grammar, morphology, and sentence order. It is the first language of many North Americans who are deaf and is the fourth most commonly used language in the United States (www.aslinfo.com). Deaf Community/Culture A multi-cultural group of individuals who identify themselves as Deaf, as an ethnic identity, and not a physical condition. The Deaf community is composed of people who use American Sign Language as their primary means of communication. The Deaf Community considers itself a linguistic minority group, a separate entity because of its unique culture, language, and social norms. It is separate from other disability consumer groups by the virtue of communication process, not physical disabilities (www.signmedia.com/info/adc.htm). Finger Spelling (Dactylology) and Invented Sign Systems Finger spelling uses hand shapes to represent the letters of the English alphabet. Invented Sign Systems (Signing Exact English [SEE] and Signed English [SE]) use manual codes (use of the hands) to represent the structure of English. English-Based Signing English-based signing entails signing a combination of both English and ASL features executed in English word order. The language proficiency of the signer will determine the use of the features from either language. It is different from the invented sign systems because it does not follow a clear-cut set of principles. In the past, this type of signing has been labeled pidgin signed English (PSE) and more recently referred to as sign English or conceptually accurate sign English (CASE). It was not intended to model English or be used in an educational context or to teach English. Its purpose is for social communication. Print Publications Resources Paul P. V. (2001). Language and Deafness (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Thomson Learning. Google Scholar Vold F. C., Kinsella-Meier M., & Hughes Hilley M. C. (1990). Signing with your client: A practical manual for audiologists and speech/language pathologists. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press. Google Scholar Web www.nad.org/infocenter/infotogo/dcc/difference.html http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/InfoToGo/549.html www.oregon.gov/DHS/odhhs/ References Author Notes Susanne Scott, is a supervising aural rehabilitationist in the department of audiology and speech-language pathology at Gallaudet University. In addition to clinical supervision, she teaches the Clinical Applications of Sign Communication classes to students in the clinical doctorate of audiology program. Contact her by e-mail at [email protected]. James H. Lee, is a clinical supervisor in the department of audiology and speech-language pathology at Gallaudet University. In addition to clinical supervision, he teaches Clinical Applications of Sign Communication to speech-language pathology graduate students. Contact him by e-mail at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 8Issue 6April 2003 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Apr 1, 2003 Metrics Current downloads: 4,634 Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2003 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

Contents: Preface. Part I: Reminiscences. L. Fant, Two Memorable Meals With Ursula and Ed. R.M. Battison, American Sign Language Linguistics 1970-1980: Memoir of a Renaissance. B. Bragg, A Fish Story for Ursula and Other Remembrances. Part II: Historical and Comparative Analyses of Sign Languages. J. Woodward, Sign Languages and Sign Language Families in Thailand and Vietnam. D. McKee, G. Kennedy, Lexical Comparisons of Signs From American, Australian, British, and New Zealand Sign Languages. H. Lane, R.C. Pillard, M. French, Origins of the American Deaf-World: Assimilating and Differentiating Societies and Their Relation to Genetic Patterning. Part III: Language in the Visual-Spatial Modality. E.L. Newport, T. Supalla, Sign Language Research at the Millennium. P. Siple, Attentional Resources and Working Memory: A New Framework for the Study of the Impact of Deafness on Cognition. M. Wilson, K. Emmorey, When Does Modality Matter? Evidence From ASL on the Nature of Working Memory. P.B. Braem, T. Bram, A Pilot Study of the Expressive Gestures Used by Classical Orchestra Conductors. N. Frishberg, An Interpreter Creates the Space. Part IV: Linguistic Analysis of Sign Languages. S.D. Fischer, More Than Just Handwaving: The Mutual Contributions of Sign Language and Linguistics. R.B. Wilbur, Phonological and Prosodic Layering of Nonmanuals in American Sign Language. R.C. Loew, C.T. Akamatsu, M. Lanaville, A Two-Handed Manual Alphabet in the United States. E. Pizzuto, V. Volterra, Iconicity and Transparency in Sign Languages: A Cross-Linguistic Cross-Cultural View. M. Kuntze, Codeswitching in ASL and Written English Language Contact. S.K. Liddell, Indicating Verbs and Pronouns: Pointing Away From Agreement. Part V: Language Acquisition. J.G. Bettger, Viewing Deaf Children in a New Way: Implications of Bellugi and Klima's Research for Education. R.P. Meier, Shared Motoric Factors in the Acquisition of Sign and Speech. A. Abrahamsen, Explorations of Enhanced Gestural Input to Children in the Bimodal Period. D. Lillo-Martin, Early and Late in Language Acquisition: Aspects of the Syntax and Acquisition of Wh-Questions in American Sign Language. J. Reilly, Bringing Affective Expression Into the Service of Language: Acquiring Perspective Marking in Narratives. C.A. Padden, V.L. Hanson, Search for the Missing Link: The Development of Skilled Reading in Deaf Children. L.A. Petitto, On the Biological Foundations of Human Language. Part VI: The Neural Organization of Sign Language. A.R. Damasio, H. Damasio, Language and the Brain. D.P. Corina, Some Observations Regarding Paraphasia in American Sign Language. H. Poizner, D. Brentari, M.E. Tyrone, J. Kegl, The Structure of Language as Motor Behavior: Clues From Signers With Parkinson's Disease. V.A. Fromkin, On the Uniqueness of Language.

Sign Language Recognition is a vast domain with a variety of solutions available on the market which achieve the same results, translating hand gestures to text and/or audio. There is a plethora of sign languages used globally, but the mostreputed and commonly used sign language is the American Sign Language (ASL). ASL uses hand gestures and finger spelling to convey the English alphabets and words. The two methods of implementing sign language translation are: Image Processing and Gesture Recognition. The gesture recognition gloves available in the current market utilize expensive flex sensors to map the bend of the users’ fingers. This makes the overall cost of the gloves expensive. Through ‘‘ASL Sign Language Recognition Gloves we aim to implement gesture recognition with MEMS accelerometers that are comparatively cheaper and make the glove more affordable.

People around the world with speech and hearing impairment use a media of communication known as ‘Sign language’. In recent times, Sign language is omnipresent. However, there exists a challenge for people who do not know sign language, to communicate with people who can communicate exclusively using sign language. This gap can be bridged by using technologies of recent times to recognize gestures and design intuitive systems with deep learning. The aim of this paper is to recognise American Sign Language gestures dynamically and create an intuitive system which provides sign language translation to text and speech of various languages. The system uses Convolutional neural network, natural language processing, language translation and text-to-speech algorithms. It is capable of recognizing hand gestures dynamically and predicting the corresponding letters to form a desired sentence accurately.

Over the past decade, there have been great advancements in radio frequency sensor technology for human–computer interaction applications, such as gesture recognition, and human activity recognition more broadly. While there is a significant amount of study on these topics, in most cases, experimental data are acquired in controlled settings by directing participants what motion to articulate. However, especially for communicative motions, such as sign language, such directed data sets do not accurately capture natural, in situ articulations. This results in a difference in the distribution of directed American Sign Language (ASL) versus natural ASL, which severely degrades natural sign language recognition in real‐world scenarios. To overcome these challenges and acquire more representative data for training deep models, the authors develop an interactive gaming environment, ChessSIGN, which records video and radar data of participants as they play the game without any external direction . The authors investigate various ways of generating synthetic samples from directed ASL data, but show that ultimately such data does not offer much improvement over just initialising using imagery from ImageNet. In contrast, an interactive learning paradigm is proposed by the authors in which model training is shown to improve as more and more natural ASL samples are acquired and augmented via synthetic samples generated from a physics‐aware generative adversarial network. The authors show that the proposed approach enables the recognition of natural ASL in a real‐world setting, achieving an accuracy of 69% for 29 ASL signs—a 60% improvement over conventional training with directed ASL data.

This paper deals primarily with the phonological structure of American Sign Language (ASL) and zmânî âmâžaî kurdî (ZAK) -Kurdish Sign Language. It is concerned with sign language (SL) and the types of sign language. One type is primary sign languages which are used by the Deaf people. Sign language is a visual-gestural language which relies on the use of the hands, facial expressions and body movements.Generally, there are myths about SLs. People believe that SLs are universal and have no grammatical structure. However, sign languages, as spoken languages, have lexicon, phonology, morphology and syntax. As far as the phonological structure of SLs includes handshape, location, movement and orientation of the hand. Therefore, some questions have been raised focusing on ASL and ZAK phonological structure. One of the questions is that: are the parameters of the phonological structure of ASL and ZAK the same? The aim of the paper is to apply ASL phonological aspects on ZAK. In this study, a mixed method is adopted. What is related to the hypothesis is that ZAK has three phonological parameters. One of the findings is that both ASL and ZAK have the same phonological parameters. As far as recommendation is concerned, more work can be carried out on the differences between ASL and ZAK at all linguistic levels.

Speech impairment affects an individual’s ability to communicate. People affected by this problem, suffer by the communication barrier with the normal people. Hence, to express their emotions and thoughts people will use sign language for their communication and. Although sign language is common in world, there may be a difficulty for people who do not have knowledge about sign language to communicate with speech impaired people who knows the sign language. Now there is a prominent growth in the field of computer vision and deep learning, which has been tremendous development in the fields of sign and motion recognition. The proposed model focusses on overcoming the challenges in verbal communication between non-sign language speakers and sign language speakers by building a deep learning model to recognize alphabets of American sign language. The model was trained on the dataset collected from Kaggle website which consisted of 26 American Sign Language alphabets. The model achieved 99.3% mean average precision in recognition of sign and average probability value for test image achieved was 0.99. The deep learning method used to build the model achieved more accuracy than the previous solutions.

The deaf and hard-of-hearing community often experiences communication barriers due to people who are not well-versed in the use of sign language.[1] This project would address this problem by developing an all-embracing machine learning (ML) model which would be able to interpret and translate the hand movements of American Sign Language (ASL) and Indian Sign Language (ISL) into corresponding spoken or written language in real time.[2] In using data from cameras, the system is designed to precisely predict and translate gestures both ASL and ISL. The solution integrates Natural Language Processing for context-aware translations and hence lets the system interpret the surrounding context for more meaningful and accurate implications. Moreover, the final project will explore the utilization of advanced Gesture recognition technologies, which might include the deep learning models and recurrent neural networks, shall enhance the system's accuracy as well as adaptability.[3] Data input multimodality will enhance gesture recognition: examples include skeletal tracking and hand shape analysis. User-friendly interface; it will be made possible for the users to interact with customization options of settings, preferences, including but not limited to language voice options.[6] Moreover, the project includes the potential for integration with other assistive technologies, such as speech-to-text devices and AR equipment among others, to provide a comprehensive communication assistant. At the end of it all, this project would empower the deaf and hard-of-hearing community by ensuring effective communication between the hearing population and the deaf and hard-of-hearing, social inclusion and access. The solution will be plentiful in schools, the workplaces, and public services, so all will be provided with the potentially useful tool of increasing accessibility and understanding.

This paper presents the development of a real time American Sign Language (ASL) detection system using Raspberry Pi and a Sequential Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) model. The system aims to bridge the communication gap between the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) community and the hearing population by translating ASL gestures into text and audio outputs. The proposed system leverages the Raspberry Pi 5, a cost effective and scalable hardware platform, combined with deep learning techniques to achieve high accuracy in gesture recognition. The system utilizes the custom dataset for training and employs hand landmark detection using MediaPipe for real-time gesture analysis. The results demonstrate an 85% accuracy in recognizing ASL gestures, with real-time text and audio outputs. The system is designed for personal, educational, and public applications, offering a practical solution for enhancing communication accessibility for the DHH community. Key Words: American Sign Language(ASL), Raspberry Pi, Machine Learning, Gesture recognition, Sign Language Translation, Text-to-Speech conversion

Introduction In this paper, I examine the practices of representing Deaf ‘voices’’ to hearing audiences in two recent US television crime dramas. More literally I look at how American Sign Language is framed and made visible on the screen through various production decisions. Drawing examples from an episode of CSI: New York that aired in December 2006 and an episode of Law and Order: Criminal Intent that aired in April 2007, I examine how the practices of filming Deaf people and the use of American Sign Language intersect with the production of a Deaf ‘voice’ on the screen. The problem of representing a Deaf ‘voice’ on the screen is akin to the problem of representing other minority languages. Film and television producers in the United States have to make choices about whether the majority audience of English speakers will have access to the minority language or not. In the face of this dilemma media producers have taken several approaches: subtitling foreign speech, translating foreign speech through other characters, or leaving the language inaccessible except to those who use it. The additional difficulty with representing national sign languages is that both the language and the recording medium are visual. Sometimes, filmmakers make the choice of leaving some portions of the signed dialogue inaccessible to a non-signing hearing audience. On the one hand this choice could indicate a devaluing of the signed communication, as its specific content is considered irrelevant to the plot. On the other hand it could indicate that Deaf people have a right to be visible on television using their own language without accommodating hearing people. A number of choices made in the filming and editing can subtly undermine positive representations of Deaf ‘voices’ particularly to a Deaf audience. These choices often construct an image of sign languages as objectified, exoticised, disjointed, incomplete, or a code for spoken language. Simple choices such as using simultaneous speaking and signing by Deaf characters, cropping the scene, translating or not translating the dialogue have powerful implications for the ways that Deaf ‘voices’ are becoming more visible in the 21st century. Typical filming and editing conventions effectively silence the Deaf ‘voice.’ Over 20 years ago, in the comprehensive book, Hollywood Speaks: Deafness and the Film Entertainment Industry (1988), Schuchman’s complaint that the filming and editing techniques of the day often did not attend to preserving the visibility and comprehensibility of sign language eon the screen, still applies today. As editing techniques have evolved over the years, fr om reliance on wide and medium shots to frequent intercutting of close-ups, the tendency to cut sign language off the screen, and out of the comprehensible view of the audience, may have even increased. Recent Portrayals of Deaf People on Television During one television season in the United States between August 2006 and April 2007, 30 episodes of six different serial television programs portrayed signing Deaf characters. Three of these programs had on-going Deaf characters that appeared in a number of episodes throughout the season, while three other programs portrayed Deaf people in a one-off episode with a Deaf theme. Initial air date for the season Program and Season # of Episodes 1 14 Aug. 2006 Weeds, Season 2 5 2 20 Sep. 2006 Jericho, Season 1 13 3 28 Jan. 2007 The L Word, Season 4 9 Table 1. Dramas with Ongoing Deaf Characters during the 2006-2007 USA Television Season Initial air date Program, Season, Episode Episode Title 1 13 Dec. 2006 CSI: New York, Season 3, Episode 12 “Silent Night” 2 3 Apr. 2007 Law and Order: Criminal Intent, Season 6, Episode 18 "Silencer" 3 12 Apr. 2007 Scrubs, Season 6, Episode 16 “My Words of Wisdom” Table 2. One-off Episodes with Signing Deaf Characters during the 2006-2007 USA Television Seasons Ironically, although the shows with ongoing characters sometimes allow the Deafness of the character to be incidental to the character, it is only the one-off crime dramas that show Deaf people relating with one another as members of a vibrant community and culture based in sign language. Often, in the ongoing series, the characters remain isolated from the Deaf community and their interactions with other Deaf people are sparse or non-existent. For example, out of the 27 episodes with an ongoing Deaf character only two episodes of The L-Word have more than one Deaf character portrayed. In both Weeds and The L-Word the Deaf character is the love interest of one of the hearing characters, while in Jericho, the Deaf character is the sister of one of the main hearing characters. In these episodes though some of realities about Deaf people’s lives are touched on as they relate to the hearing characters, the reality of signing Deaf people’s social lives in the Deaf community is left absent and they are depicted primarily interacting with hearing people. The two episodes, from CSI: New York, and Law and Order: Criminal Intent, focus on the controversial theme of cochlear implants in the Deaf community. Though it is true that generally the signing Deaf community in the U.S.A. sees cochlear implants as a threat to their community, there is no record of this controversy ever motivating violent criminal acts or murder as portrayed in these episodes. In the episode of CSI: New York entitled “Silent Night” a conflict between a young Deaf man and Deaf woman who were formerly romantically involved is portrayed. The murdered young woman who comes from a Deaf family does not want her Deaf baby to have a cochlear implant while the killer ex-boyfriend who has a cochlear implant believes that it is the best option for his child. The woman’s Deaf parents are involved in the investigation. The episode of Law and Order: Criminal Intent, entitled “Silencer,” is also ultimately about a conflict between a Deaf man and a Deaf woman over cochlear implants. In the end, it is revealed that the Deaf woman is exploring the possibility of a cochlear implant. Her boyfriend projecting the past hurt of his hearing sister leaving him behind to go off and live her own life, doesn’t want his girlfriend to leave him once she gains more hearing. So he shoots the cochlear implant surgeon in the hand to prevent him from being able to perform the surgery. Then he accidentally kills him by crushing his voice box to prevent him from screaming. Analyzing Two Crime Dramas In both television dramas, the filmmakers use both sound and video editing techniques to mark the experiential difference between hearing and Deaf characters. In comparing the two dramas two techniques are evident : muting/distorting sounds and extreme close-ups on lips talking or hands signing. Though these techniques may heighten awareness of deaf experience to a non-signing audience they also point to a disabling stereotyping of the experience of being Deaf as lacking — framing their experience as hearing loss rather than Deaf gain (Bauman & Murray; Shakespeare 199). By objectifying sign language through extreme close ups American Sign Language is portrayed as something strange and unusual that separates Deaf signers from hearing speakers. The auditory silences can either jolt the hearing non-signer into awareness of the sensory aspect of sound that is missing or it can jolt them into awareness of the visual world that they often don’t really see. In the opening few scenes of the episodes both CSI: New York and Law and Order: Criminal Intent use sound editing alternately muting or distorting sounds as they cut between a ‘deaf’ auditory perspective and a ‘hearing’ perspective on the action as it unfolds. Even though the sound editing does play a part in the portrayal of Deaf people’s experience as lacking sound, the more important aspects of film production to attend to are the visual aspects where Deaf people are seen authentically signing in their own language. Scene Analysis Methodology In taking a closer look at a scene from each episode we can see exactly how the filming and editing techniques work to create an image of sign language. I have chosen comparable scenes where a Deaf individual is interviewed or interrogated by the police using a sign language interpreter. In each scene it can be assumed that all the communication is happening in both English and ASL through an interpreter, so at all times some signing should be occurring. In transcribing the scenes, I noted each point when the editor spliced different camera shots adjacent to each other. Because of the different visual aesthetics in each program where one relied heavily on continuous panning shots, I also noted where the camera shifted focus from one character to another marking the duration of screen time for each character. This allowed for a better comparison between the two programs. In my transcripts, I included both glosses of the ASL signs visible on the screen as well as the flow of the spoken English on the audio track. This enabled me to count how many separate shifts in character screen time segments contained signing and how much of these contained completely visible signing in medium shots. CSI:NY Witness Interview Scene In the first signing scene, Gina (played by Marlee Matlin) is brought in for an interview with Detective Taylor and a uniformed officer interpreter. The scene opens with a medium shot on Detective Taylor as he asks her, “What do you think woke you up?” The shot cuts to an extreme close up of her face and hands and pans to only the hands

<p>Sign language is a medium of communication for people with hearing and speaking impairment. It uses gestures to convey messages. The proposed system focuses on using sign language in search engines and helping specially-abled people get the information they are looking for. Here, we are using Marathi sign language. Translation systems for Indian sign languages are not much simple and popular as American sign language. Marathi language consists of words with individual letters formed of two letter = Swara + Vyanjan (Mulakshar). Every Vyanjan or Swara individually has a unique sign which can be represented as image or video with still frames. Any letter formed of both Swara and Vyanjan is represented with hand gesture signing the Vyanjan as above and with movement of signed gesture in shape of Swara in Devnagari script. Such letters are represented with videos containing motion and frames in particular sequence. Further the predicted term can be searched on google using the sign search. The proposed system includes three important steps: 1) hand detection; 2) sign recognition using neural networks; 3) fetching search results. Overall, the system has great potential to help individuals with hearing and speaking impairment to access information on the internet through the use of sign language. It is a promising application of machine learning and deep learning techniques.</p>

Abstract: Sign Language is a non-verbal form of communication that is used to interact with the specially abled. These people have communication barriers when it comes to daily interactions with others who don’t understand sign language. Technological advancements and progress in Machine Learning algorithms have made gesture recognition possible. Sign language is one of the oldest and most natural forms of language for communication, but since most people do not know sign language and interpreters are very difficult to come by, we have come up with a real-time method using neural networks for fingerspelling based on American sign language. In our method, the hand is first passed through a filter and after the filter is applied, the hand is passed through a CNN module which predicts the class of the hand gestures. This literature survey analyses studies based on sign language translator and teaching applications. Conclusions drawn from this literature review could help in creating the perfect application that can make daily communication easy for the specially aided. We plan on providing two modules, one wherein the sign language gestures are converted into text and displayed. The second module is made wherein the text entered is converted into sign language and displayed on the User interface.

Few American Sign Language (ASL) assessments are readily available for educators to administer and score to document deaf students’ skill levels and direct ASL instruction. Even fewer studies include deaf students with intellectual disabilities or document deaf students’ ASL skills across time. The present study reports deaf school-aged students’ receptive and expressive ASL skills using two readily-available assessments, the American Sign Language Receptive Skills Test (ASL-RST) and an ASL handshape sign generation task. Students attended a residential school for the deaf with a bilingual (i.e. ASL and written English) philosophy in the United States and were assessed across a four-year period. Results for a longitudinal subset of 29 students across three consecutive years are also included. In general, receptive skills strongly and significantly correlated with age, while more variation was found in expressive ASL phonological skills. Longitudinally, most students increased their receptive and expressive skills. Scores did not correspond with years at the school site, which was used as a proxy for years of ASL exposure. Results provide an age-band basis by which educators and researchers can compare deaf children’s sign language skills with their same-aged deaf peers on two readily available ASL assessments. Researchers can replicate this process for children and youth who use other sign languages as well. Implications for sign language instruction and future research are addressed.