Transfer Learning for British Sign Language Modelling

06/03/2020 ∙ by Boris Mocialov, et al. ∙ Heriot-Watt University 0

Automatic speech recognition and spoken dialogue systems have made great advances through the use of deep machine learning methods. This is partly due to greater computing power but also through the large amount of data available in common languages, such as English. Conversely, research in minority languages, including sign languages, is hampered by the severe lack of data. This has led to work on transfer learning methods, whereby a model developed for one language is reused as the starting point for a model on a second language, which is less resourced. In this paper, we examine two transfer learning techniques of fine-tuning and layer substitution for language modelling of British Sign Language. Our results show improvement in perplexity when using transfer learning with standard stacked LSTM models, trained initially using a large corpus for standard English from the Penn Treebank corpus



There are no comments yet.


page 3

This week in AI

Get the week's most popular data science and artificial intelligence research sent straight to your inbox every Saturday.

1 Introduction

Spoken dialogue systems and voice assistants have been developed to facilitate natural conversation between machines and humans. They provide services through devices such as Amazon Echo Show and smartphones to help the user do tasks [21] and, more recently, for open domain chitchat [31], all through voice. Recent advances have been facilitated by the huge amounts of data collected through such devices and have resulted in the recent success of deep machine methods, providing significant improvements in performance. However, not all languages are able to benefit from these advances, particularly those that are under-resourced. These include sign languages and it means that those who sign are not able to leverage such interactive systems nor the benefits that automatic transcription and translating of signing would afford.

Here, we advance the state of the art with respect to transcribing British Sign Language (BSL). Our aim is for automated transcription of the BSL into English leveraging video recognition technologies. BSL enables communication of meaning through parameters such as hand shape, position, hand orientation, motion, and non-manual signals [34]. BSL has no standard notation for writing the signs, as with letters and words in English. Analogous to the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), highly detailed mapping of visual indicators to written form are available, such as HamNoSys [14]. Despite the expressiveness of the HamNoSys writing system, its practical uses are limited and only a handful of experts know how to use it. Recent methods for automatic speech recognition (ASR) use deep neural models to bypass the need for phoneme dictionaries [15], which are then combined with language models. Previous work [26, 25] has shown that we can use visual features to automatically predict individual signs. This work follows on in that these individual signs are to be used with a language model to take into account context and therefore increase accuracy of the transcriber, which outputs a string of word-like tokens. These tokens are called glosses [34, 5]. Although glosses are translated BSL signs, they also convey some grammatical information about BSL. This makes glosses useful in their own right without the videos of the BSL signs and sheds some light into the syntax and semantics of the BSL.

This paper focuses on language modelling, a common technique in the field of ASR and Natural Language Processing to model the likelihood of certain words following each other in a sequence. We improve modelling of the BSL glosses by proposing to use transfer learning approaches, such as fine-tuning and layer substitution. The use of transfer learning technique can overcome the data sparsity issue in statistical modelling for scarce resource languages by using similar resources that can be found in large quantities and then further training the models on a specific low resource data.

We show that a model, pre-trained on the Penn Treebank (PTB) dataset111 and fine-tuned on the BSL monolingual corpus222 can yield better results. This is in contrast to the same architecture that is trained directly on the BSL dataset without pre-training. This is a somewhat surprising result as there are marked differences between the two languages, particularly with the respect to the syntax [34].

The paper begins with presenting methods for modelling languages and how they can be utilised in the BSL modelling. Section 2.2 gives an overview of how transfer learning can be achieved as well as the use of transfer learning in sign languages. Section 3 gives an overview of the datasets that are used in this paper, their statistics, and pre-processing steps to create two monolingual corpora for statistical model training. Section 4 describes in detail the setup for the experiments in this paper. Section 5 presents the results of the models employed for this research and discusses these results and the limitations of the approach taken in terms of the data used in Section 5.3. The paper is then concluded and future work is proposed.

2 Related Work

2.1 Sign Language Modelling

Despite the availability of many alternatives for language modelling, such as count-based n-grams and their variations

[4, 28, 19, 2, 13]

, hidden Markov models

[8, 7]

, decision trees and decision forests


, and neural networks

[6, 24], research in sign language modelling predominantly employs simple n-gram models, such as in DBLP:journals/corr/CateH17, forster2012rwth, and masso2010dealing.

The reason for the wide-spread use of n-grams in sign language modelling is the simplicity of the method. However, there is a disconnect between n-grams and sign language in that signing is embodied and perceived visually, while the n-grams are commonly applied to text sequence modelling. For this reason, the authors in stein2007hand, zhao2000machine, dreuw2008benchmark, masso2010dealing, and forster2013improving model glosses, such as the ones shown on Figure 2, which are obtained from the transcribed sign languages, in a similar way to how language modelling is applied to automatic transcribed words from speech.

Glosses model the meaning of a sign in a written language, but not the execution (i.e. facial expressions, hand movement). Therefore, the more detailed meaning of what was signed may get lost when working with the higher-level glosses. To overcome this issue and to incorporate valuable information into sign language modelling, additional features are added in similar research, such as non-manual features (e.g facial expressions) [29, 20, 36, 32].

In this work we use glosses because we want to model BSL purely at the gloss level without any additional information (e.g. facial expressions).

2.2 Transfer Learning

While transfer learning is a more general machine learning term, cross-domain adaptation of language models is used in the language modelling literature [6, 18]. Models are usually trained on some specific domain that consists of a specific topic, genre, and similar features that can be identified by an expert. For example, a restaurant domain when a new type of a restaurant is created then the system needs to be able to adapt and be able to understand and discuss this new type of the restaurant. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to train a model for all possible configuration of current or future features. Commonly, a set of features are extracted from the raw data. When features change, re-training is required. Useful features can also be extracted without expert knowledge with such techniques as Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA). These features usually take the form of words that represent topics in the data [6]. Best practice tries to avoid re-training the models every time one of the features changes as the domain changes due to the overhead involved.

Model-based adaptation to the new domains, on the other hand, is achieved by either fine-tuning or the introduction of adaptation layer(s) [35]. Fine-tuning involves further training the already pre-trained model using the data from the new domain. The intuition behind the fine-tuning is that it is much quicker to learn new information with related knowledge. The adaptation layer approach incorporates new knowledge by re-training only the adaptation layer, whereas the rest of the model remains exactly the same as if it was used in the original domain and acts as a feature extractor for the new domain [6].

Transfer learning has been applied to sign languages in computing for various purposes to demonstrate that the method is suitable for the task due to the lack of substantial domain-specific sign language data. Transfer learning has been successfully applied to static pose estimation, transferring the knowledge from pose estimation to the sign language pose estimation

[11] and classification of fingerspelled letters in American Sign Language [10, 17, 3, 27]

. In particular, most of the transfer learning in sign language has been applied to static image recognition to recognise the hand shape in an image using convolutional neural networks.

We apply transfer learning to the language modelling task as this is a key challenge in successfully transcribing BSL.

3 Corpora

The BSL corpus and the preprocessed Penn Treebank (PTB) corpus were chosen for this research. The monolingual PTB dataset consists of telephone speech, newswire, microphone speech, and transcribed speech. The dataset is preprocessed to eliminate letters, numbers, or punctuation and was used by Mikolov mikolov2010recurrent. The BSL corpus contains video conversations among deaf native, near-native and fluent signers across the United Kingdom. Almost all of the approximately one hundred recorded conversations are annotated for thirty seconds each at the gloss level using ELAN333 annotation tool [30].

Figure 1: The BSL Corpus Project Sample Video Snippets555

All recordings of the signers were made using up to four standard video cameras with a plain backdrop to provide full body view of the individuals, as well as, views from above of their use of signing space. The conversations between the signers included signing personal experience anecdotes, spontaneous conversations [30].

The BSL data that we focused on was narratives between two participants, where one person had to think of a topic to sign about to another participant during the elicitation.


Free Translation I want to tell you about my puppy My family got a puppy last year
Figure 2: a) The BSL Corpus Annotation in ELAN; b) Table shows full text of the annotated glosses for the two first sentences from the ELAN annotation; c) Glosses that are used for the BSL modelling

The corpus is annotated with glosses, taken from the BSL SignBank in ELAN as shown in Figure 2a. Figure 2b shows all the glosses of the first sentence. As mentioned above, gloss is an identifier of a unique sign, written in English and should represent its phonological and morphological meaning [30]. In the corpus, the glosses are identified throughout the videos for both left and right hands as sometimes different signs can be signed at the same time. Apart from the glossing, the annotations include the corresponding free English written translation of the meaning of the signing split into sentences (see the Free Translation in the Figure 2). Figure 2c shows which glosses are considered for the BSL modelling and which are ignored. This is done to match the vocabulary of the PTB corpus for the transfer learning purposes.

3.1 Data Pre-processing

For the BSL corpus, we ignore the free translation and extract English text from the glosses, preserving the order of the signs executed. For example, in Figure 2, right-hand glosses identify the following order of the signs: good, explain, about, puppy, etc. excluding glosses, such as PT:PRO for pointing signs or PT:POSS for possessives and others (Figure 2c), which are explained in more detail in Fenlon et al. fenlon2014using. Since the gloss annotation does not include explicit punctuation, it is impossible to tell where a signed sentence begins and where it stops. To overcome this limitation of the gloss annotation, we use the Free Translation annotation, which gives the boundaries of sentences in videos. Later, we split the extracted glosses into sentences using these sentence boundaries. By the end of the pre-processing stage, we have glosses (excluding special glosses for pointing signs, posessives or other non-lexical glosses) in the order that the corresponding signs were executed in the video, split into sentences. As a result, we extracted 810 nominal sentences from the BSL corpus with an average length of the sentence being 4.31 glossed signs, minimum and maximum lengths of 1 and 13 glossed signs respectively. A monolingual dataset has been created with the extracted sentences. As obtained from the PTB dataset [22], the English language corpus has 23.09 words on average per sentence with minimum being 3 and maximum 84 words per sentence. The pre-processed BSL corpus has a vocabulary of 666 words, while the PTB dataset has a vocabulary of words. From this point on in this paper, we will use the term ‘words’ to refer to both glosses in the BSL and words in the PTB datasets because we aim to use a common vocabulary for training our models.

Both monolingual datasets were split into training, validation, and testing sets as required for training and evaluation of the statistical models. Both datasets were split using ratio 85:15. The smaller subset, in turn, was split 50:50 for validation and testing for the two datasets.

4 Language Modelling Methodology

4.1 Statistical Language Models

Perplexity measure has been used for evaluation and comparison purposes of different models. We used the following formula to calculate the perplexity values:

as used in bengio2003neural, which approximates geometric average of the predicted words probabilities on the test set. We have explicitly modelled out-of-vocabulary (OOV), such as

placeholder in all the experiments.

4.1.1 Neural Models

For comparison, we use two methods: 1) stacked LSTM and 2) Feed-Forward (FFNN) architectures to create the BSL language models. All models are implemented in PyTorch

666 with weight-drop recurrent regularisation scheme for the LSTMs, which is important for overcoming commonly known LSTM model generalisation issues [22, 23]. The feed-forward model, on the other hand, had no regularisations as it is less susceptible to overfitting due to the much smaller number of parameters.

The parameters that were modified to achieve the lowest perplexity were input size of the overall input sequence for the recurrent neural network (back-propagation through time, BPTT), batch size, learning rate, and the optimizer. The parameters were selected using the grid search approach using perplexity metric. As a result, for the stacked LSTMs, bptt was set to 5, batch size was set to 16, discounted learning rate was set to 30, and the optimizer was set to stochastic gradient descent. In case of the feed-forward network, input was set to 5 words, batch size was set to 16, discounted learning rate was set to 30, and the optimizer was set to stochastic gradient descent. All the neural models were trained for 100 epochs.

In the case of the neural networks, the sequences of words were tokenised (i.e. turned into integers) and the tokenisation was stored to ensure the same tokenisation during the transfer learning phase. The input, therefore, consisted of a set of tokens, while the outputs (i.e. predicted words) were turned into a one-hot vectors.

(a) Stacked LSTMs model
(b) Feed-Forward model
Figure 3: The two types of neural models used to test transfer methods for sign language modelling Stacked LSTMs

Figure (a)a

shows the architecture of the stacked LSTM model. The model consists of an embedding layer of 400 nodes, which, together with the tokenisation, turns string of words into a vector of real numbers. Secondly, three LSTM layers with 1150 nodes each are stacked vertically for deeper feature extraction. Thirdly, the linear layer downsizes the stacked LSTMs output to the vocabulary size and applies linear transformation with softmax normalisation. The weights of the embedding and the linear layers are tied. This means that the two layers share the same weights, which reduces the number of parameters of the network and makes the convergence during training faster. The same architecture was used in merityRegOpt to model PTB dataset, reporting 57.3 perplexity, utilising cache in the model from recent predictions. Ffnn

Figure (b)b

shows the Feed-forward model architecture. The model does not have the stacked LSTMs layers. Instead, the stacked LSTMs are substituted with one hidden fully-connected rectifier layer, which is known to overcome the vanishing gradient problem. The weights of the embedding and the outputs layers are not tied together. Similar architectures have been used for language modelling in le2013structured, 4960686, and DBLP:journals/corr/BrebissonSAVB15 with the hidden layer having different activation functions with the PTB dataset being used in DBLP:journals/corr/AudhkhasiSR14, reporting 137.32 perplexity.

4.1.2 Training the Models

Transfer learning was achieved with both fine-tuning and substitution. Both FFNN and LSTM were trained on the PTB dataset and then either fine-tuned or the last layer was substituted with the new adaptation layer, freezing the rest of the weights, and further training on the BSL dataset.

To achieve fine-tuning, first the best model is saved after the training of both the FFNN and the stacked LSTMs on the PTB dataset. Then the training is restarted on the BSL corpus, having initialised the model with the weights, trained on the PTB dataset.

To perform layer substitution as a transfer learning approach, the same first step as with the fine-tuning is repeated and the model, trained on the PTB, is saved. When the training is restarted on the BSL dataset, the saved model is loaded and the last linear layer is substituted with a layer that has as many nodes as the BSL vocabulary. Later, all the weights of the network are locked and will not be modified during the optimisation. Only the weights of the last substituted layer will be modified. This method uses the pretrained network as a feature extractor and only modifies the last layer weights to train the model for the BSL dataset.

5 Results

This section is split into two subsections. We firstly present results without transfer learning, namely both the FFNN and the stacked LSTMs models trained and tested on the PTB dataset or trained and tested on the BSL. Later we present results with the transfer learning, with both FFNN and the stacked LSTMs models trained on the PTB dataset and then fine-tuned and tested on the BSL.

To show that the two languages are different, as discussed in Section 3.1, we applied the model trained on one language to the other language and vice versa. As a result, the model trained on English language and applied to the BSL scored 1051.91 in perplexity using SRILM toolkit [33]

. Conversely, a model trained on the BSL has been applied to the English language and scored 1447.23 in perplexity. As expected, the perplexity is high in both cases, which means that the probability distribution over the next word in one language is far from the true distribution of words in the other language.

5.1 Without Transfer Learning

Penn Treebank
Corpus Project
190.46 258.1
Stacked LSTMs
65.91 274.03
OOV 6.09% 25.18%
Table 1: Perplexities on either the PTB or the BSL test sets using models trained and tested on the same corpus (i.e. PTB and BSL)

Table 1 shows perplexities on the two datasets with two statistical models. From the table, we can infer that the trained models on the PTB dataset have lower perplexity than the same architectures trained on the BSL dataset. This can be explained by the fact that the PTB dataset has more data than the BSL dataset and, therefore, statistical models can generalise better. Furthermore, the amount of data is further reduced in the BSL case as the OOV covers a quarter of the overall dataset.

5.2 With Transfer Learning

Table 2 shows perplexities on the two datasets with two statistical models, applying transfer learning. From this table, it can be seen that the substitution approach gives very similar results independent of the whether FFNN or stacked LSTMs model is used (123.92 versus 125.32). The best result is achieved with the fine-tuning approach on the stacked LSTMs model, while the higher perplexity result is on the FFNN model with the fine-tuning approach. Similar results have been reported in irie2016lstm, where fine-tuned GRU performed worse than fine-tuned LSTM model. In addition, the OOV count differs from that of the Table 1 due to the fact that a subset of the vocabulary, observed in the PTB dataset during training is then identified in the BSL dataset during testing.

Fine-tuning Substitution
179.3 123.92
Stacked LSTMs
121.46 125.32
OOV 12.71%
Table 2: Perplexities on the BSL test set after applying the transfer learning on FFNN and LSTMs

5.3 Discussion

The salient idea of this paper is whether transfer learning is a legitimate method for modelling one language with the knowledge of another, assuming the languages are different, but share some common properties, such as vocabulary. This theory is intuitive and has been discussed in linguistics for spoken languages [16]. In our case, PTB corpus covers most of the vocabulary found in the BSL corpus (12.71% OOV) by the virtue of the gloss annotation of the BSL corpus [30]. However, the languages are assumed to be different as they evolved independently of one another [1].

The results obtained are different from reported in similar research. For example, for the FFNN model, Audhkhasi et al. DBLP:journals/corr/AudhkhasiSR14 report 137.32 versus our achieved 190.46 perplexity and for the stacked LSTMs model, Merity et al. merityRegOpt report 57.3 versus our achieved 65.91 perplexity. This can be explained by the fact that not all the regularisation techniques had been used in this research as in the past research and the model training had been restricted to 100 epochs. Further training may further reduce the perplexity to that reported in Merity et al. merityRegOpt.

From the results, we can see that the transfer learning leads to superior models than the models trained on the BSL directly (258.1 and 274.03 against 123.92 and 125.32). Since the quality of the trained models using either of the approaches is similar in case of the stacked LSTMs model (121.46 and 125.32), the choice between the fine-tuning and substitution can be guided based on the convergence speed. During the substitution, only one layer of the network is replaced with a new one and the rest of the weights in the network are locked, therefore, one set of weights will be optimized. This is in contrast to the fine-tuning method, which optimizes all of the weights, which may, in turn, require more interactions, depending on how different the new data is.

6 Conclusion

This paper shows how transfer learning techniques can be used to improve language modelling for the BSL language at the gloss level. Statistical modelling techniques are used to generate language models and to evaluate them using a perplexity measure.

The choice of the transfer learning technique is guided by the scarcity of available resources of the BSL language and the availability of the English language dataset that shares similar language modelling vocabulary with the annotated BSL. Feed-forward and recurrent neural models have been used to evaluate and compare generated language models. The results show that transfer learning can achieve superior quality of the generated language models. However, our pre-processed BSL corpus lacks constructs that are essential for a sign language, such as classifier signs and others. Nevertheless, transfer learning for modelling the BSL shows promising results and should be investigated further.

6.1 Future Work

Although this paper discusses the use of a model initially trained on English and presents promising preliminary results, the annotation of the BSL, used in this paper, is limited as this paper serves as a proof of concept. In particular, the annotation used is missing some of the grammatical aspects of the BSL, such as classifier signs and others. Inclusion of these into the BSL language modelling would increase the OOV count as the English language does not have equivalent language constructs. This raises a question whether a sign language can be modelled using other languages that may have these constructs. More generally, is it possible to model a language with transfer learning using other less-related languages? Similar questions have been partly answered for the written languages in the field of machine translation [12] by bringing words of different languages close to each other in the latent space. However, nothing similar has been done for the sign languages.

From the methodological side of the modelling, additional advanced state of the art techniques should be experimented with to achieve greater quality of the generated models, such as attention mechanism for the recurrent neural networks. Finally, this paper focuses on key techniques for sign processing, which could be part of a larger conversational system whereby signers could interact with computers and home devices through their natural communication medium of sign. Research in such end-to-end systems would include vision processing, segmentation, classification, and language modelling as well as language understanding and dialogue modelling, all tuned to sign language.


  • [1] M. Brennan (1992) The visual world of bsl: an introduction. Faber and Faber. Note: In David Brien (Ed.), Dictionary of British Sign Language/English Cited by: §5.3.
  • [2] I. Bulyko, S. Matsoukas, R. Schwartz, L. Nguyen, and J. Makhoul (2007) Language model adaptation in machine translation from speech. In Proceedings of the Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2007. ICASSP 2007. IEEE International Conference on, Vol. 4, pp. IV–117. Cited by: §2.1.
  • [3] B. Chaudhary (2017-04) Real-time translation of sign language into text. Note: Data Science Retreat. Cited by: §2.2.
  • [4] S. F. Chen and J. Goodman (1999) An empirical study of smoothing techniques for language modeling. Computer Speech & Language 13 (4), pp. 359–394. Cited by: §2.1.
  • [5] K. Cormier, J. Fenlon, S. Gulamani, and S. Smith (2015) BSL corpus annotation conventions. Cited by: §1.
  • [6] S. Deena, M. Hasan, M. Doulaty, O. Saz, and T. Hain (2016) Combining feature and model-based adaptation of rnnlms for multi-genre broadcast speech recognition. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, INTERSPEECH, pp. 2343–2347. Cited by: §2.1, §2.2, §2.2.
  • [7] P. Dreuw, C. Neidle, V. Athitsos, S. Sclaroff, and H. Ney (2008) Benchmark databases for video-based automatic sign language recognition.. In LREC, Cited by: §2.1.
  • [8] P. Dreuw and H. Ney (2008) Visual modeling and feature adaptation in sign language recognition. In Voice Communication (SprachKommunikation), 2008 ITG Conference on, pp. 1–4. Cited by: §2.1.
  • [9] D. Filimonov (2011) Decision tree-based syntactic language modeling. University of Maryland, College Park. Cited by: §2.1.
  • [10] B. Garcia and S. A. Viesca (2016) Real-time american sign language recognition with convolutional neural networks. In In Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp. 225-232., Cited by: §2.2.
  • [11] S. Gattupalli, A. Ghaderi, and V. Athitsos (2016)

    Evaluation of deep learning based pose estimation for sign language

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.09065 abs/1602.09065. External Links: Link, 1602.09065 Cited by: §2.2.
  • [12] J. Gu, H. Hassan, J. Devlin, and V. O. Li (2018)

    Universal neural machine translation for extremely low resource languages

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.05368. Cited by: §6.1.
  • [13] D. Guthrie, B. Allison, W. Liu, L. Guthrie, and Y. Wilks (2006) A closer look at skip-gram modelling. In Proceedings of the 5th international Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2006), Cited by: §2.1.
  • [14] T. Hanke (2004) HamNoSys-representing sign language data in language resources and language processing contexts. Cited by: §1.
  • [15] A. Y. Hannun, C. Case, J. Casper, B. Catanzaro, G. Diamos, E. Elsen, R. Prenger, S. Satheesh, S. Sengupta, A. Coates, and A. Y. Ng (2014) Deep speech: scaling up end-to-end speech recognition. CoRR abs/1412.5567. External Links: Link, 1412.5567 Cited by: §1.
  • [16] A. Kaivapalu and M. Martin (2007) Morphology in Transition: Plural Inflection of Finnish nouns by Estonian and Russian Learners. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 54 (2), pp. 129–156. Cited by: §5.3.
  • [17] J. K. Karthick Arya (2017-10) Convolutional neural networks based sign language recognition. International Journal of Innovative Research in Computer and Communication Engineering 5 (10). Cited by: §2.2.
  • [18] M. Ma, M. Nirschl, F. Biadsy, and S. Kumar (2017) Approaches for neural-network language model adaptation. Proc. Interspeech 2017, pp. 259–263. Cited by: §2.2.
  • [19] B. MacCartney (2005) NLP lunch tutorial: smoothing. Cited by: §2.1.
  • [20] G. Massó and T. Badia (2010) Dealing with sign language morphemes in statistical machine translation. In 4th workshop on the representation and processing of sign languages: corpora and sign language technologies, Cited by: §2.1.
  • [21] M. McTear (2004) Spoken dialogue technology: toward the conversational user interface. Springer, London. Cited by: §1.
  • [22] S. Merity, N. S. Keskar, and R. Socher (2017) Regularizing and Optimizing LSTM Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.02182. Cited by: §3.1, §4.1.1.
  • [23] S. Merity, N. S. Keskar, and R. Socher (2018) An Analysis of Neural Language Modeling at Multiple Scales. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.08240. Cited by: §4.1.1.
  • [24] T. Mikolov, M. Karafiát, L. Burget, J. Černockỳ, and S. Khudanpur (2010) Recurrent neural network based language model. In Eleventh Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Cited by: §2.1.
  • [25] B. Mocialov, G. Turner, K. Lohan, and H. Hastie (2017) Towards continuous sign language recognition with deep learning. In Proc. of the Workshop on the Creating Meaning With Robot Assistants: The Gap Left by Smart Devices, Cited by: §1.
  • [26] B. Mocialov, P. A. Vargas, and M. S. Couceiro (2016) Towards the evolution of indirect communication for social robots. In Computational Intelligence (SSCI), 2016 IEEE Symposium Series on, pp. 1–8. Cited by: §1.
  • [27] D. G.N. R. Muskan Dhiman (2017) SIGN language recognition. Note: Cited by: §2.2.
  • [28] R. Rosenfeld (2000) Two decades of statistical language modeling: where do we go from here?. Proceedings of the IEEE 88 (8), pp. 1270–1278. Cited by: §2.1.
  • [29] R. San-Segundo, J. M. Pardo, J. Ferreiros, V. Sama, R. Barra-Chicote, J. M. Lucas, D. Sánchez, and A. García (2009) Spoken spanish generation from sign language. Interacting with Computers 22 (2), pp. 123–139. Cited by: §2.1.
  • [30] A. Schembri, J. Fenlon, R. Rentelis, S. Reynolds, and K. Cormier (2013) Building the British Sign Language corpus. Language Documentation and Conservation 7. Cited by: §3, §3, §3, §5.3.
  • [31] I. V. Serban, R. Lowe, L. Charlin, and J. Pineau (2016) Generative deep neural networks for dialogue: a short review. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.06216. Cited by: §1.
  • [32] D. Stein, P. Dreuw, H. Ney, S. Morrissey, and A. Way (2007) Hand in hand: automatic sign language to english translation. Cited by: §2.1.
  • [33] A. Stolcke (2002) SRILM-an extensible language modeling toolkit. In Proceedings of the Seventh international conference on spoken language processing, Cited by: §5.
  • [34] R. Sutton-Spence and B. Woll (1999) The linguistics of British Sign Language: an introduction. The Linguistics of British Sign Language: An Introduction, Cambridge University Press. External Links: ISBN 9780521637183, LCCN 98020588, Link Cited by: §1, §1.
  • [35] J. Yosinski, J. Clune, Y. Bengio, and H. Lipson (2014) How transferable are features in deep neural networks?. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pp. 3320–3328. Cited by: §2.2.
  • [36] L. Zhao, K. Kipper, W. Schuler, C. Vogler, N. Badler, and M. Palmer (2000) A machine translation system from english to american sign language. In Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, pp. 54–67. Cited by: §2.1.