Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision 1999
DOI: 10.1109/iccv.1999.791206
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Parallel hidden Markov models for American sign language recognition

Abstract: The major challenge that faces American Sign Language (ASL) recognition now is to develop methods that will scale well with increasing vocabulary size. Unlike in spoken languages, phonemes can occur simultaneously in ASL. The number of possible combinations of phonemes after enforcing linguistic constraints is approximately 5:5 10 8 : Gesture recognition, which is less constrained than ASL recognition, suffers from the same problem.Thus, it is not feasible to train conventional hidden Markov models (HMMs) for … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
101
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 192 publications
(101 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
101
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Due to the relative disadvantages of HMMs (poor performance when training data is insufficient, no method to weight features dynamically and violations of the stochastic independence assumptions), they coupled the HMM recogniser with motion analysis using computer vision techniques to improve combined recognition rates [100]. In their following work, Vogler and Metaxas [101] demonstrated that Parallel Hidden Markov Models (PaHMMs) are superior to regular HMMs, Factorial HMMs and Coupled HMMs for the recognition of sign language due the intrinsic parallel nature of the phonemes. The major problem though is that regular HMMs are simply not scalable in terms of handling the parallel nature of phonemes present in sign.…”
Section: Classification Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Due to the relative disadvantages of HMMs (poor performance when training data is insufficient, no method to weight features dynamically and violations of the stochastic independence assumptions), they coupled the HMM recogniser with motion analysis using computer vision techniques to improve combined recognition rates [100]. In their following work, Vogler and Metaxas [101] demonstrated that Parallel Hidden Markov Models (PaHMMs) are superior to regular HMMs, Factorial HMMs and Coupled HMMs for the recognition of sign language due the intrinsic parallel nature of the phonemes. The major problem though is that regular HMMs are simply not scalable in terms of handling the parallel nature of phonemes present in sign.…”
Section: Classification Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While their later work [101], used PaHMMs on both hand shape and motion sub-units, as proposed by the linguist Stokoe [95]. Work has also concentrated on learning signs from low numbers of examples.…”
Section: Phoneme Level Representationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The majority of existing methods are model-based, using Hidden Markov Models [6][7][8][9] or alternative approaches such as recursive partition trees [10], boosted volumetric features [11], and hidden conditional random fields [12]. Such methods typically use ten or more training examples per gesture or sign.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hence it was of limited use in tracking natural pointing gestures, although it was able to recognize parametric gestures defined by the relative position of both hands [33] using a variation of Hidden Markov Models. Other HMM approaches to gesture recognition include [19,32]. Bobick and Davis [11] created a view-dependent approach to gesture recognition using temporal templates.…”
Section: Previous Workmentioning
confidence: 99%