pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19352 · v1 · pith:E3QQHS6Tnew · submitted 2026-04-28 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI

Sign-Language Datasets at Scale: A Comprehensive Survey on Resources, Benchmarks, and Annotation Standards

Yiming Ni , Zhi-Qi Cheng , Jiayu Li , Wei Cheng This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-01 09:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AI
keywords sign language datasetssurveybenchmarksannotation standardsmodality imbalancesigner biasDeaf communitiesdataset documentation
0
0 comments X

The pith

A survey of 120 sign-language datasets across 35 languages identifies major challenges in modality balance, annotation detail, and signer diversity.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper compiles an index of 120 sign-language resources spanning 35 languages to address fragmentation that limits progress in recognition and translation systems. It examines problems including imbalance between video and other modalities, inconsistent levels of annotation detail, and biases from limited signer variety. The work proposes a 24-field datasheet template to standardize how datasets are documented and evaluated. This matters because consistent foundations can help develop technologies that better match the real communication needs of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing communities.

Core claim

Existing sign-language datasets are fragmented with inconsistent annotations and limited coverage, and a comprehensive survey of 120 resources across 35 languages combined with a standardized 24-field datasheet can establish a unified foundation for inclusive and scalable sign-language technologies.

What carries the argument

The 24-field Sign-Language Datasheet for standardized documentation of resources, benchmarks, and annotations.

If this is right

  • Dataset creators can use the datasheet to ensure consistent reporting of modality, granularity, and diversity aspects.
  • Evaluations of sign-language models can become more reproducible through the outlined standards.
  • Future resources should prioritize balancing modalities and reducing signer bias to better reflect real-world use.
  • Considerations for annotation standards can lead to datasets that support more linguistically accurate models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This standardization method could extend to datasets for other visual communication systems.
  • Addressing the identified challenges might accelerate applications in accessibility tools and education.
  • Comparative analysis with datasets in spoken language processing could highlight unique needs of sign languages.

Load-bearing premise

The 120 identified resources form a complete enough sample to accurately capture the main challenges across sign languages.

What would settle it

Discovery of many additional sign-language datasets beyond the 120 surveyed that do not exhibit the described challenges of modality imbalance, annotation issues, or signer bias.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19352 by Jiayu Li, Wei Cheng, Yiming Ni, Zhi-Qi Cheng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of sign language tasks: Recognition (SLR), Translation (SLT), and Production (SLP), with repre￾sentative subtypes and annotation settings. challenges for effective communication between DHH and hearing individuals. Human interpreters help bridge this gap, but access is often limited by availability, cost, and scheduling constraints (Universal Translation Ser￾vices, 2023). These limitations have mo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Word clouds of translation outputs from three major SLT datasets: CSL-Daily, PHOENIX14T, and How2Sign. The visualization highlights frequent words in target sentences, revealing domain-specific vocabulary distributions. rable model architectures. This reflects its greater diversity in signers, topics, and recording environ￾ments, as well as the inclusion of casual daily ex￾pressions and multimodal inputs (… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Geographic distribution of sign language datasets. The heatmap highlights the number of datasets collected per country or region. Darker colors indicate higher dataset density, with most resources concentrated in Europe, North America, and East Asia. [Best zooming in to view]. 5 Dataset Challenges Despite rapid progress in sign language modeling, several structural challenges remain, particularly in access… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: UMAP projection of sentence embeddings across datasets. Each panel incrementally adds one dataset to PHOENIX14T, illustrating how semantic domains expand and overlap in embedding space. Colors: PHOENIX14T (red), CSL-Daily (blue), How2Sign (green), OpenASL (purple), YouTube-ASL (orange). [Best zooming in to view]. used due to its open availability, well-aligned gloss annotations, and consistent data format,… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper facial Action Units and co-activation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Sign languages are expressive visual languages used by Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing (DHH) communities. Despite substantial progress in sign-language recognition, translation, and production, advances remain constrained by fragmented datasets, inconsistent annotations, and limited linguistic coverage. Existing benchmarks often fail to reflect real-world communication needs, and systematic analyses of these limitations remain limited. In this survey, we present a comprehensive index of sign-language datasets, covering 120 resources across 35 sign languages. We analyze key challenges such as modality imbalance, annotation granularity, and signer bias, and outline considerations for future dataset design. We also introduce a 24-field Sign-Language Datasheet and release a public GitHub repository (https://github.com/Ginqwerty/Open-Sign-Language) to support standardized documentation and reproducible evaluation. Overall, our work provides a unified and practical foundation for developing inclusive, robust, and scalable sign-language technologies in real-world applications.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper surveys sign-language datasets, indexing 120 resources across 35 sign languages. It identifies challenges such as modality imbalance, annotation granularity, and signer bias; proposes a 24-field Sign-Language Datasheet; and releases a public GitHub repository (https://github.com/Ginqwerty/Open-Sign-Language) for standardized documentation and reproducible evaluation. The central claim is that this provides a unified and practical foundation for inclusive sign-language technologies.

Significance. If the 120-resource sample is representative, the survey supplies a useful catalog and a concrete standardization artifact (the datasheet template plus public repo) that could improve future dataset creation and benchmarking in the field. The explicit release of reproducible resources is a clear strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Resource collection / methods section (preceding the analysis of challenges)] The abstract and introduction claim coverage of 120 resources across 35 languages and use this sample to diagnose field-wide challenges (modality imbalance, annotation granularity, signer bias). However, no search protocol, inclusion/exclusion criteria, database sources, or PRISMA-style accounting is provided in the resource-identification section. Without these, the representativeness assumption cannot be verified and the diagnostic claims rest on an unexamined retrieval funnel.
  2. [Analysis of challenges (section discussing the 120 resources)] The claim that the identified challenges 'accurately reflect the state of the field' is load-bearing for the paper's contribution. Because the selection process is opaque, it is impossible to rule out systematic omission of high-quality datasets from non-English repositories or under-indexed languages, which would directly affect the reported modality imbalance and signer-bias findings.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Contributions / conclusion] The GitHub repository and 24-field datasheet template are positive, concrete contributions that should be highlighted more prominently as actionable outputs.
  2. [Abstract] Clarify in the abstract or introduction whether the 120 resources constitute an exhaustive list or a curated sample; the current wording ('comprehensive index') risks overstatement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for highlighting the need for greater transparency in our resource collection process. We agree that the absence of a documented search protocol limits the ability to verify representativeness and will revise the manuscript to address this directly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Resource collection / methods section (preceding the analysis of challenges)] The abstract and introduction claim coverage of 120 resources across 35 languages and use this sample to diagnose field-wide challenges (modality imbalance, annotation granularity, and signer bias). However, no search protocol, inclusion/exclusion criteria, database sources, or PRISMA-style accounting is provided in the resource-identification section. Without these, the representativeness assumption cannot be verified and the diagnostic claims rest on an unexamined retrieval funnel.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not currently provide a formal search protocol, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or PRISMA-style accounting. In the revised version we will add a dedicated 'Resource Identification' subsection that details: the databases and repositories searched (Google Scholar, arXiv, ACL Anthology, RWTH and other sign-language archives, plus direct author contacts); the keyword sets employed in English and, where feasible, other languages; explicit inclusion criteria (public availability, minimum documented size, and basic metadata); exclusion criteria (proprietary or non-reusable resources); and a summary table or diagram accounting for screening and inclusion numbers. This addition will make the retrieval process verifiable. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Analysis of challenges (section discussing the 120 resources)] The claim that the identified challenges 'accurately reflect the state of the field' is load-bearing for the paper's contribution. Because the selection process is opaque, it is impossible to rule out systematic omission of high-quality datasets from non-English repositories or under-indexed languages, which would directly affect the reported modality imbalance and signer-bias findings.

    Authors: We accept that the current opacity prevents strong claims that the observed challenges fully represent the field. The revised 'Resource Identification' section will allow readers to evaluate coverage gaps, particularly for non-English sources. We will also revise the analysis section to qualify statements as applying to the surveyed sample, explicitly note the risk of under-representation of certain languages or repositories, and invite community contributions to the public repository to mitigate such gaps over time. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Survey catalog and template proposal contains no derivations or fitted predictions

full rationale

The paper is a descriptive survey that indexes 120 resources, identifies challenges from the collected sample, and proposes a 24-field datasheet template. It contains no equations, parameter fitting, predictions derived from models, or self-citation chains that reduce claims to inputs by construction. The central contribution is organizational and does not rely on any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

As a survey paper the work rests on the assumption that publicly available literature and dataset repositories contain the resources being indexed; no free parameters, mathematical axioms, or invented entities are introduced.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5693 in / 1167 out tokens · 22255 ms · 2026-07-01T09:07:36.760943+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

277 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Samah Abbas, Hassanin Al-Barhamtoshy, and Fahad Alotaibi. 2021. Towards an arabic sign language (arsl) corpus for deaf drivers. PeerJ Computer Science, 7:e741

    2021

  2. [2]

    Nikolas Adaloglou, Theocharis Chatzis, Ilias Papastratis, Andreas Stergioulas, Georgios Th Papadopoulos, Vassia Zacharopoulou, George J Xydopoulos, Klimnis Atzakas, Dimitris Papazachariou, and Petros Daras. 2021. A comprehensive study on deep learning-based methods for sign language recognition. IEEE transactions on multimedia, 24:1750--1762

    2021

  3. [3]

    Muhammad Al-Barham, Adham Alsharkawi, Musa Al-Yaman, Mohammad Al-Fetyani, Ashraf Elnagar, Ahmad Abu SaAleek, and Mohammad Al-Odat. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.11932 Rgb arabic alphabets sign language dataset . Preprint, arXiv:2301.11932

    work page arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Muneer Al-Hammadi, Ghulam Muhammad, Wadood Abdul, Mansour Alsulaiman, Mohamed A Bencherif, and Mohamed Amine Mekhtiche. 2020. Hand gesture recognition for sign language using 3dcnn. IEEE access, 8:79491--79509

    2020

  5. [5]

    Samuel Albanie, G \"u l Varol, Liliane Momeni, Triantafyllos Afouras, Joon Son Chung, Neil Fox, and Andrew Zisserman. 2020. Bsl-1k: Scaling up co-articulated sign language recognition using mouthing cues. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23--28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XI 16, pages 35--53. Springer

    2020

  6. [7]

    Nigar Alishzade and Jamaladdin Hasanov. 2025. Azsld: Azerbaijani sign language dataset for fingerspelling, word, and sentence translation with baseline software. Data in Brief, 58:111230

    2025

  7. [8]

    Abdulaziz Almohimeed, Mike Wald, and Robert Damper. 2010. An arabic sign language corpus for instructional language in school

    2010

  8. [9]

    Sarah Alyami, Hamzah Luqman, and Mohammad Hammoudeh. 2024. Reviewing 25 years of continuous sign language recognition research: Advances, challenges, and prospects. Information Processing & Management, 61(5):103774

    2024

  9. [10]

    Tejaswini Ananthanarayana, Nikunj Kotecha, Priyanshu Srivastava, Lipisha Chaudhary, Nicholas Wilkins, and Ifeoma Nwogu. 2021. Dynamic cross-feature fusion for american sign language translation. In 2021 16th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG 2021), pages 1--8. IEEE

    2021

  10. [11]

    Vassilis Athitsos, Carol Neidle, Stan Sclaroff, Jordan Nash, Andrew Stefan, Quan Yuan, and Alexandra Thangali. 2008. The ASL lexicon video dataset. In CVPR 2008 Workshop on Human Communicative Behaviour Analysis (CVPR4HB'08)

    2008

  11. [12]

    Tadas Baltrusaitis, Amir Zadeh, Yao Chong Lim, and Louis-Philippe Morency. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/FG.2018.00019 Openface 2.0: Facial behavior analysis toolkit . In 2018 13th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition (FG 2018), pages 59--66

    work page doi:10.1109/fg.2018.00019 2018

  12. [13]

    Penny Boyes-Braem and Rachel Sutton-Spence. 2001. The Hands Are the Head of the Mouth: The Mouth as Articulator in Sign Languages. Gallaudet University Press

    2001

  13. [14]

    Danielle Bragg, Abraham Glasser, Fyodor Minakov, Naomi Caselli, and William Thies. 2022. Exploring collection of sign language videos through crowdsourcing. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(CSCW2):1--24

    2022

  14. [15]

    Necati Cihan Camgoz, Simon Hadfield, Oscar Koller, Hermann Ney, and Richard Bowden. 2018. Neural sign language translation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7784--7793

    2018

  15. [16]

    o z, Ahmet Alp K nd ro g lu, Serpil Karab \

    Necati Cihan Camg \"o z, Ahmet Alp K nd ro g lu, Serpil Karab \"u kl \"u , Meltem Kelepir, Ay s e Sumru \"O zsoy, and Lale Akarun. 2016. Bosphorussign: A turkish sign language recognition corpus in health and finance domains. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'16), pages 1383--1388

    2016

  16. [17]

    Necati Cihan Camgoz, Oscar Koller, Simon Hadfield, and Richard Bowden. 2020. Sign language transformers: Joint end-to-end sign language recognition and translation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10023--10033

    2020

  17. [18]

    Necati Cihan Camg \"o z, Ben Saunders, Guillaume Rochette, Marco Giovanelli, Giacomo Inches, Robin Nachtrab-Ribback, and Richard Bowden. 2021. Content4all open research sign language translation datasets. In 2021 16th IEEE international conference on automatic face and gesture recognition (FG 2021), pages 1--5. IEEE

    2021

  18. [19]

    Xiujuan Chai, Hanjie Wang, and Xilin Chen. 2014. The devisign large vocabulary of chinese sign language database and baseline evaluations. In Technical report VIPL-TR-14-SLR-001. Key Lab of Intelligent Information Processing of Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). Institute of Computing Technology

    2014

  19. [20]

    Chen Chen, Baochang Zhang, Zhenjie Hou, Junjun Jiang, Mengyuan Liu, and Yun Yang. 2017. Action recognition from depth sequences using weighted fusion of 2d and 3d auto-correlation of gradients features. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 76:4651--4669

    2017

  20. [22]

    Yutong Chen, Fangyun Wei, Xiao Sun, Zhirong Wu, and Stephen Lin. 2022 a . A simple multi-modality transfer learning baseline for sign language translation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5120--5130

    2022

  21. [23]

    Yutong Chen, Ronglai Zuo, Fangyun Wei, Yu Wu, Shujie Liu, and Brian Mak. 2022 b . Two-stream network for sign language recognition and translation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:17043--17056

    2022

  22. [25]

    Helen Cooper, Eng-Jon Ong, Nicolas Pugeault, and Richard Bowden. 2012. Sign language recognition using sub-units. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13(1):2205--2231

    2012

  23. [26]

    Pedro Dal Bianco, Gast \'o n R \' os, Franco Ronchetti, Facundo Quiroga, Oscar Stanchi, Waldo Hasperu \'e , and Alejandro Rosete. 2022. Lsa-t: The first continuous argentinian sign language dataset for sign language translation. In Ibero-American Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 293--304. Springer

    2022

  24. [28]

    Mirella De Sisto, Vincent Vandeghinste, Santiago Egea G \'o mez, Mathieu De Coster, Dimitar Shterionov, and Horacio Saggion. 2022. https://aclanthology.org/2022.lrec-1.264 Challenges with sign language datasets for sign language recognition and translation . In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 2478--2487, M...

    2022

  25. [29]

    Aashaka Desai, Lauren Berger, Fyodor Minakov, Nessa Milano, Chinmay Singh, Kriston Pumphrey, Richard Ladner, Hal Daum \'e III, Alex X Lu, Naomi Caselli, and 1 others. 2024. Asl citizen: a community-sourced dataset for advancing isolated sign language recognition. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  26. [30]

    Philippe Dreuw, Thomas Deselaers, Daniel Keysers, and Hermann Ney. 2006. Modeling image variability in appearance-based gesture recognition. In ECCV workshop on statistical methods in multi-image and video processing, pages 7--18

    2006

  27. [31]

    Philippe Dreuw, David Rybach, Thomas Deselaers, Morteza Zahedi, and Hermann Ney. 2007. Speech recognition techniques for a sign language recognition system. hand, 60:80

    2007

  28. [32]

    Amanda Duarte, Shruti Palaskar, Lucas Ventura, Deepti Ghadiyaram, Kenneth DeHaan, Florian Metze, Jordi Torres, and Xavier Giro-i Nieto. 2021. How2sign: a large-scale multimodal dataset for continuous american sign language. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2735--2744

    2021

  29. [33]

    Sarah Ebling, Necati Cihan Camg \"o z, Penny Boyes Braem, Katja Tissi, Sandra Sidler-Miserez, Stephanie Stoll, Simon Hadfield, Tobias Haug, Richard Bowden, Sandrine Tornay, and 1 others. 2018. Smile swiss german sign language dataset. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC) 2018. The European Languag...

    2018

  30. [34]

    Hager, and Wallace V

    Paul Ekman, Joseph C. Hager, and Wallace V. Friesen. 2002. Facial Action Coding System: The Manual. Research Nexus, Salt Lake City, UT. Book copy of the 2002 revision

    2002

  31. [36]

    J \'e r \^o me Fink, Beno \^ t Fr \'e nay, Laurence Meurant, and Anthony Cleve. 2021. Lsfb-cont and lsfb-isol: Two new datasets for vision-based sign language recognition. In 2021 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pages 1--8. IEEE

    2021

  32. [37]

    Jens Forster, Christoph Schmidt, Thomas Hoyoux, Oscar Koller, Uwe Zelle, Justus H Piater, and Hermann Ney. 2012. Rwth-phoenix-weather: A large vocabulary sign language recognition and translation corpus. In LREC, volume 9, pages 3785--3789

    2012

  33. [38]

    Jens Forster, Christoph Schmidt, Oscar Koller, Martin Bellgardt, and Hermann Ney. 2014. Extensions of the sign language recognition and translation corpus rwth-phoenix-weather. In LREC, pages 1911--1916

    2014

  34. [39]

    Biao Fu, Peigen Ye, Liang Zhang, Pei Yu, Cong Hu, Xiaodong Shi, and Yidong Chen. 2023. A token-level contrastive framework for sign language translation. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1--5. IEEE

    2023

  35. [40]

    Shiwei Gan, Yafeng Yin, Zhiwei Jiang, Hongkai Wen, Lei Xie, and Sanglu Lu. 2024. Signgraph: A sign sequence is worth graphs of nodes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13470--13479

    2024

  36. [41]

    Manfred Georg, Garrett Tanzer, Esha Uboweja, Saad Hassan, Maximus Shengelia, Sam Sepah, Sean Forbes, and Thad Starner. 2025. Fsboard: Over 3 million characters of asl fingerspelling collected via smartphones. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 13897--13906

    2025

  37. [42]

    Jia Gong, Lin Geng Foo, Yixuan He, Hossein Rahmani, and Jun Liu. 2024. Llms are good sign language translators. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 18362--18372

    2024

  38. [44]

    Shester Gueuwou, Xiaodan Du, Greg Shakhnarovich, and Karen Livescu. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.06907 Signmusketeers: An efficient multi-stream approach for sign language translation at scale . Preprint, arXiv:2406.06907

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [45]

    Eva Gutierrez-Sigut, Brendan Costello, Cristina Baus, and Manuel Carreiras. 2016. Lse-sign: A lexical database for spanish sign language. Behavior Research Methods, 48:123--137

    2016

  40. [46]

    Yasser Hamidullah, Josef van Genabith, and Cristina Espa \ n a-Bonet. 2024. Sign language translation with sentence embedding supervision. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 425--434

    2024

  41. [47]

    Ayman Hasib, Jannatul Ferdous Eva, Saqib Sizan Khan, Mst Nipa Khatun, Ashraful Haque, Nishat Shahrin, Rashik Rahman, Hasan Murad, Md Rajibul Islam, and Molla Rashied Hussein. 2023. Bdsl 49: A comprehensive dataset of bangla sign language. Data in Brief, 49:109329

    2023

  42. [48]

    Saad Hassan, Larwan Berke, Elahe Vahdani, Longlong Jing, Yingli Tian, and Matt Huenerfauth. 2020. An isolated-signing rgbd dataset of 100 american sign language signs produced by fluent asl signers. In Proceedings of the LREC2020 9th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Sign Language Resources in the Service of the Language Com...

    2020

  43. [50]

    Hezhen Hu, Weichao Zhao, Wengang Zhou, and Houqiang Li. 2023. Signbert+: Hand-model-aware self-supervised pre-training for sign language understanding. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(9):11221--11239

    2023

  44. [51]

    Hezhen Hu, Wengang Zhou, Junfu Pu, and Houqiang Li. 2021. Global-local enhancement network for nmf-aware sign language recognition. ACM transactions on multimedia computing, communications, and applications (TOMM), 17(3):1--19

    2021

  45. [52]

    Jie Huang, Wengang Zhou, Houqiang Li, and Weiping Li. 2018 a . Attention-based 3d-cnns for large-vocabulary sign language recognition. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 29(9):2822--2832

    2018

  46. [53]

    Jie Huang, Wengang Zhou, Qilin Zhang, Houqiang Li, and Weiping Li. 2018 b . Video-based sign language recognition without temporal segmentation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 32

    2018

  47. [54]

    Eui Jun Hwang, Jung-Ho Kim, and Jong C Park. 2021. Non-autoregressive sign language production with gaussian space. In BMVC, volume 1, page 3

    2021

  48. [55]

    Eui Jun Hwang, Huije Lee, and Jong C Park. 2024. A gloss-free sign language production with discrete representation. In 2024 IEEE 18th International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG), pages 1--6. IEEE

    2024

  49. [56]

    Nada B Ibrahim, Mazen M Selim, and Hala H Zayed. 2018. An automatic arabic sign language recognition system (arslrs). Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences, 30(4):470--477

    2018

  50. [57]

    Zora Jachova, Olivera Kovacheva, and Aleksandra Karovska. 2008. Differences between american sign language (asl) and british sign language (bsl). Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation, 9(1-2):41--54

    2008

  51. [58]

    Elena Jahn, Reiner Konrad, Gabriele Langer, Sven Wagner, and Thomas Hanke. 2018. Publishing dgs corpus data: Different formats for different needs. In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages at LREC, volume 2

    2018

  52. [59]

    Youngjoon Jang, Haran Raajesh, Liliane Momeni, G \"u l Varol, and Andrew Zisserman. 2025. Lost in translation, found in context: Sign language translation with contextual cues. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 8742--8752

    2025

  53. [60]

    Peiqi Jiao, Yuecong Min, and Xilin Chen. 2024. Visual alignment pre-training for sign language translation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 349--367. Springer

    2024

  54. [61]

    Abhinav Joshi, Ashwani Bhat, Priya Gole, Shashwat Gupta, Shreyansh Agarwal, Ashutosh Modi, and 1 others. 2022. Cislr: corpus for indian sign language recognition. In Proceedings of the 2022 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 10357--10366

    2022

  55. [63]

    Navroz Kaur Kahlon and Williamjeet Singh. 2023. Machine translation from text to sign language: a systematic review. Universal Access in the Information Society, 22(1):1--35

    2023

  56. [64]

    Mike Kemp. 1998. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44392557 Why is learning american sign language a challenge? American Annals of the Deaf, 143(3):255--259. Accessed: 2024-09-29

    work page arXiv 1998

  57. [66]

    Polurie Venkata Vijay Kishore and P Rajesh Kumar. 2012. A video based indian sign language recognition system (inslr) using wavelet transform and fuzzy logic. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 4(5):537

    2012

  58. [67]

    Oscar Koller, Necati Cihan Camgoz, Hermann Ney, and Richard Bowden. 2019. Weakly supervised learning with multi-stream cnn-lstm-hmms to discover sequential parallelism in sign language videos. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 42(9):2306--2320

    2019

  59. [68]

    Deep Kothadiya, Chintan Bhatt, Krenil Sapariya, Kevin Patel, Ana-Bel \'e n Gil-Gonz \'a lez, and Juan M Corchado. 2022. Deepsign: Sign language detection and recognition using deep learning. Electronics, 11(11):1780

    2022

  60. [69]

    Rakesh Kumar Attar, Vishal Goyal, and Lalit Goyal. 2023. State of the art of automation in sign language: a systematic review. ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing, 22(4):1--80

    2023

  61. [70]

    David Laines, Miguel Gonzalez-Mendoza, Gilberto Ochoa-Ruiz, and Gissella Bejarano. 2023. Isolated sign language recognition based on tree structure skeleton images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 276--284

    2023

  62. [71]

    u ller, Sabrina W \

    Gabriele Langer, Anke M \"u ller, Sabrina W \"a hl, Felicitas Otte, Lea Sepke, and Thomas Hanke. 2024. Introducing the dw-dgs--the digital dictionary of dgs. In Proceedings of the LREC-COLING 2024 11th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Evaluation of Sign Language Resources, pages 194--203

    2024

  63. [72]

    Ghazanfar Latif, Nazeeruddin Mohammad, Jaafar Alghazo, Roaa AlKhalaf, and Rawan AlKhalaf. 2019. Arasl: Arabic alphabets sign language dataset. Data in brief, 23:103777

    2019

  64. [73]

    Dongxu Li, Cristian Rodriguez, Xin Yu, and Hongdong Li. 2020. Word-level deep sign language recognition from video: A new large-scale dataset and methods comparison. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, pages 1459--1469

    2020

  65. [74]

    Zecheng Li, Wengang Zhou, Weichao Zhao, Kepeng Wu, Hezhen Hu, and Houqiang Li. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.15187 Uni-sign: Toward unified sign language understanding at scale . Preprint, arXiv:2501.15187

    work page arXiv 2025

  66. [75]

    Zeyu Liang, Huailing Li, and Jianping Chai. 2023. Sign language translation: A survey of approaches and techniques. Electronics, 12(12):2678

    2023

  67. [77]

    Aleix Martínez, Ronnie Wilbur, Robin Shay, and Avinash Kak. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMI.2002.1166987 Purdue rvl-slll asl database for automatic recognition of american sign language . pages 167--172

    work page doi:10.1109/icmi.2002.1166987 2002

  68. [79]

    Arda Mavi and Zeynep Dikle. 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.03859 A new 27 class sign language dataset collected from 173 individuals . Preprint, arXiv:2203.03859

    work page arXiv 2022

  69. [80]

    Stephen McCullough and Karen Emmorey. 2009. Categorical perception of affective and linguistic facial expressions. Cognition, 110(2):208--221

    2009

  70. [81]

    Kenneth Mej \' a-Per \'e z, Diana-Margarita C \'o rdova-Esparza, Juan Terven, Ana-Marcela Herrera-Navarro, Teresa Garc \' a-Ram \' rez, and Alfonso Ram \' rez-Pedraza. 2022. Automatic recognition of mexican sign language using a depth camera and recurrent neural networks. Applied Sciences, 12(11):5523

    2022

  71. [82]

    Johanna Mesch and Lars Wallin. 2012. From meaning to signs and back: Lexicography and the swedish sign language corpus. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Interactions between Corpus and Lexicon [Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC)], pages 123--126

    2012

  72. [83]

    RI Minu and 1 others. 2023. A extensive survey on sign language recognition methods. In 2023 7th International Conference on Computing Methodologies and Communication (ICCMC), pages 613--619. IEEE

    2023

  73. [84]

    Liliane Momeni, Gul Varol, Samuel Albanie, Triantafyllos Afouras, and Andrew Zisserman. 2020. Watch, read and lookup: learning to spot signs from multiple supervisors. In Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision

    2020

  74. [85]

    Medet Mukushev, Arman Sabyrov, Alfarabi Imashev, Kenessary Koishibay, Vadim Kimmelman, and Anara Sandygulova. 2020. Evaluation of manual and non-manual components for sign language recognition. In Proceedings of The 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference. European Language Resources Association (ELRA)

    2020

  75. [86]

    Medet Mukushev, Arman Sabyrov, Madina Sultanova, Vadim Kimmelman, and Anara Sandygulova. 2022. https://aclanthology.org/2022.signlang-1.25 Towards semi-automatic sign language annotation tool: SLAN -tool . In Proceedings of the LREC2022 10th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Multilingual Sign Language Resources, pages 159--1...

    2022

  76. [87]

    Anup Nandy, Jay Shankar Prasad, Soumik Mondal, Pavan Chakraborty, and Gora Chand Nandi. 2010. Recognition of isolated indian sign language gesture in real time. In Information Processing and Management: International Conference on Recent Trends in Business Administration and Information Processing, BAIP 2010, Trivandrum, Kerala, India, March 26-27, 2010. ...

    2010

  77. [89]

    Carol Neidle, Stan Sclaroff, and Vassilis Athitsos. 2001. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195384 Signstream: A tool for linguistic and computer vision research on visual-gestural language data . Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc, 33:311--20

    work page doi:10.3758/bf03195384 2001

  78. [90]

    Carol Neidle and Christian Vogler. 2012. A new web interface to facilitate access to corpora: Development of the asllrp data access interface (dai). In Proc. 5th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Interactions between Corpus and Lexicon, LREC, volume 3, pages 23--28. Citeseer

    2012

  79. [91]

    Adri \'a n N \'u \ n ez-Marcos, Olatz Perez-de Vi \ n aspre, and Gorka Labaka. 2023. A survey on sign language machine translation. Expert Systems with Applications, 213:118993

    2023

  80. [92]

    Marlon Oliveira, Houssem Chatbri, Ylva Ferstl, Mohamed Farouk, Suzanne Little, Noel E O'Connor, and Alistair Sutherland. 2017. A dataset for irish sign language recognition

    2017

Showing first 80 references.