| Literature DB >> 35535197 |
Abdul Mannan1, Ahmed Abbasi1, Abdul Rehman Javed1, Anam Ahsan2, Thippa Reddy Gadekallu3, Qin Xin4.
Abstract
Sign language plays a pivotal role in the lives of impaired people having speaking and hearing disabilities. They can convey messages using hand gesture movements. American Sign Language (ASL) recognition is challenging due to the increasing intra-class similarity and high complexity. This paper used a deep convolutional neural network for ASL alphabet recognition to overcome ASL recognition challenges. This paper presents an ASL recognition approach using a deep convolutional neural network. The performance of the DeepCNN model improves with the amount of given data; for this purpose, we applied the data augmentation technique to expand the size of training data from existing data artificially. According to the experiments, the proposed DeepCNN model provides consistent results for the ASL dataset. Experiments prove that the DeepCNN gives a better accuracy gain of 19.84%, 8.37%, 16.31%, 17.17%, 5.86%, and 3.26% as compared to various state-of-the-art approaches.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35535197 PMCID: PMC9078784 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1450822
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Hand poses for each English alphabet.
Figure 2Training samples of each label.
Figure 3Sign language letters.
Figure 4The architecture of DeepCNN.
Figure 5System flowchart.
Figure 6Total trainable parameters and layers.
Proposed results for sign language recognition.
| Epoch | Lr_reduced | Accuracy | Loss | Val_accuracy | Val_loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.00075 | 0.2337 | 2.4592 | 0.7909 | 0.5520 |
| 8 | 0.00050 | 0.9869 | 0.0457 | 0.9883 | 0.0502 |
| 12 | 0.00025 | 0.9951 | 0.0151 | 0.9971 | 0.0060 |
| 16 | 0.00012 | 0.9990 | 0.0043 | 0.9996 | 0.0016 |
| 18 | 6.25000 | 0.9995 | 0.0016 | 1.0000 | 9.8659 |
| 20 | 3.12500 | 0.9997 | 7.7924 | 1.0000 | 7.0703 |
Figure 7Training and validation results.
Figure 8Prediction results on test data.
Figure 9Confusion matrix of the proposed approach against each class.
Figure 10Overall results of each target class.
Performance comparison of the proposed approach with the baseline approaches.
| Ref. | No. of gestures | Recognition accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|
| [ | 26 ASL gestures (A–Z) | 79.83 |
| [ | 10 ASL gestures (0–9) | 91.30 |
| [ | 10 selected gestures | 83.36 |
| [ | 26 ASL gestures (A–Z) and 36 ASL gestures (A–Z, 0–9) | 93.81 |
| [ | 30 ASL gestures (12 dynamic signs and 18 static signs) | 96.41 |
| Proposed | 24 ASL gestures | 99.67 |