Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 77, Issue 24, pp 32063–32091 | Cite as

Indian sign language recognition using graph matching on 3D motion captured signs

  • D. Anil KumarEmail author
  • A. S. C. S. Sastry
  • P. V. V. Kishore
  • E. Kiran Kumar


A machine cannot easily understand and interpret three-dimensional (3D) data. In this study, we propose the use of graph matching (GM) to enable 3D motion capture for Indian sign language recognition. The sign classification and recognition problem for interpreting 3D motion signs is considered an adaptive GM (AGM) problem. However, the current models for solving an AGM problem have two major drawbacks. First, spatial matching can be performed on a fixed set of frames with a fixed number of nodes. Second, temporal matching divides the entire 3D dataset into a fixed number of pyramids. The proposed approach solves these problems by employing interframe GM for performing spatial matching and employing multiple intraframe GM for performing temporal matching. To test the proposed model, a 3D sign language dataset is created that involves 200 continuous sentences in the sign language through a motion capture setup with eight cameras.The method is also validated on 3D motion capture benchmark action dataset HDM05 and CMU. We demonstrated that our approach increases the accuracy of recognizing signs in continuous sentences.


3D sign language 3D motion capture Spatial graph matching Temporal graph matching Distance measures 



This work was supported in part by the research project scheme titled “Visual – Verbal Machine Interpreter Fostering Hearing Impaired and Elderly”, by the “Technology Interventions for Disabled and Elderly” programme of the Department of Science and Technology, SEED Division, Govt. of India, Ministry of Science and Technology under Grant SEED/TIDE/013/2014(G).

Supplementary material

11042_2018_6199_MOESM1_ESM.avi (98.5 mb)
(AVI 98.4 MB)


  1. 1.
    Agarwal A, Thakur MK (2013) Sign language recognition using microsoft kinect. In: 2013 Sixth international conference on contemporary computing (IC3), IEEE.
  2. 2.
    Aggarwal J, Xia L (2014) Human activity recognition from 3d data: a review. Pattern Recogn Lett 48:70–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Almeida SGM, Guimarães FG, Ramírez JA (2014) Feature extraction in brazilian sign language recognition based on phonological structure and using RGB-d sensors. Expert Syst Appl 41(16):7259–7271. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ansari ZA, Harit G (2016) Nearest neighbour classification of indian sign language gestures using kinect camera. Sadhana 41(2):161–182. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barnachon M, Bouakaz S, Boufama B, Guillou E (2014) Ongoing human action recognition with motion capture. Pattern Recogn 47(1):238–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Belgacem S, Chatelain C, Paquet T (2017) Gesture sequence recognition with one shot learned CRF/HMM hybrid model. Image Vis Comput 61:12–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Borzeshi EZ, Piccardi M, Xu RYD (2011) A discriminative prototype selection approach for graph embedding in human action recognition. In: 2011 IEEE International conference on computer vision workshops (ICCV workshops), IEEE.
  8. 8.
    Cahill-Rowley K, Rose J (2017) Temporal–spatial reach parameters derived from inertial sensors: Comparison to 3d marker-based motion capture. J Biomech 52:11–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Çeliktutan O, Wolf C, Sankur B, Lombardi E (2014) Fast exact hyper-graph matching with dynamic programming for spatio-temporal data. J Math Imaging Vision 51(1):1–21. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chai X, Li G, Chen X, Zhou M, Wu G, Li H (2013) Visualcomm: a tool to support communication between deaf and hearing persons with the kinect. In: Proceedings of the 15th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility, ACM, p 76Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cui J, Liu Y, Xu Y, Zhao H, Zha H (2013) Tracking generic human motion via fusion of low-and high-dimensional approaches. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 43(4):996–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Duan J, Zhou S, Wan J, Guo X, Li SZ (2016) Multi-modality fusion based on consensus-voting and 3d convolution for isolated gesture recognition. arXiv:1611.06689
  13. 13.
    Geng L, Ma X, Wang H, Gu J, Li Y (2014) Chinese sign language recognition with 3d hand motion trajectories and depth images. In: Proceeding of the 11th world congress on intelligent control and automation, IEEE.
  14. 14.
    Grest D, Krüger V Gradient-enhanced particle filter for vision-based motion capture. In: Human motion–understanding, modeling, capture and animation. Springer, Berlin, pp 28–41Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gärtner T, Flach P, Wrobel S (2003) On graph kernels: hardness results and efficient alternatives. In: Learning theory and kernel machines. Springer, Berlin, pp 129–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guess TM, Razu S, Jahandar A, Skubic M, Huo Z (2017) Comparison of 3d joint angles measured with the kinect 2.0 skeletal tracker versus a marker-based motion capture system. J Appl Biomech 33(2):176–181. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Han F, Reily B, Hoff W, Zhang H (2017) Space-time representation of people based on 3d skeletal data: a review. Comput Vis Image Underst 158:85–105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huang P, Hilton A, Starck J (2010) Shape similarity for 3d video sequences of people. Int J Comput Vis 89(2-3):362–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jeong YS, Jeong MK, Omitaomu OA (2011) Weighted dynamic time warping for time series classification. Pattern Recogn 44(9):2231–2240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Junejo IN, Aghbari ZA (2012) Using SAX representation for human action recognition. J Vis Commun Image Represent 23(6):853–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kakadiaris I, Barrón C Model-based human motion capture. In: Handbook of mathematical models in computer vision, Springer, pp 325–340Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kishore PVV, Kumar DA, Sastry ASCS, Kumar EK (2018) Motionlets matching with adaptive kernels for 3-d indian sign language recognition. IEEE Sensors J 18(8):3327–3337. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kumar Eepuri K, Kishore PSSASC, Maddala TKK, Kumar Dande A (2018) Training CNNs, for 3d sign language recognition with color texture coded joint angular displacement maps. IEEE Signal Processing Letters :1–1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kumar P, Gauba H, Roy PP, Dogra DP (2017) Coupled hmm-based multi-sensor data fusion for sign language recognition. Pattern Recogn Lett 86:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kumar P, Gauba H, Roy PP, Dogra DP (2017) A multimodal framework for sensor based sign language recognition. Neurocomputing 259:21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kushwah MS, Sharma M, Jain K, Chopra A (2016) Sign language interpretation using pseudo glove. In: Proceeding of international conference on intelligent communication, control and devices, Springer, Singapore, pp 9–18Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Leightley D, Li B, McPhee JS, Yap MH, Darby J (2014) Exemplar-based human action recognition with template matching from a stream of motion capture. In: Lecture notes in computer science, Springer international publishing, pp 12–20Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li K, Zhou Z, Lee CH (2016) Sign transition modeling and a scalable solution to continuous sign language recognition for real-world applications. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing 8(2):1–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Li M, Leung H, Liu Z, Zhou L (2016) 3d human motion retrieval using graph kernels based on adaptive graph construction. Comput Graph 54:104–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Li SZ, Yu B, Wu W, Su SZ, Ji RR (2015) Feature learning based on SAE–PCA network for human gesture recognition in RGBD images. Neurocomputing 151:565–573. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liu L, Cheng L, Liu Y, Jia Y, Rosenblum DS (2016) Recognizing complex activities by a probabilistic interval-based model. In: AAAI, vol 30, pp 1266–1272Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Liu Y, Nie L, Han L, Zhang L, Rosenblum DS (2015) Action2activity: recognizing complex activities from sensor data. In: IJCAI, vol 2015, pp 1617–1623Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Liu Y, Nie L, Liu L, Rosenblum DS (2016) From action to activity: sensor-based activity recognition. Neurocomputing 181:108–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lu Y, Wei Y, Liu L, Zhong J, Sun L, Liu Y (2017) Towards unsupervised physical activity recognition using smartphone accelerometers. Multimedia Tools and Applications 76(8):10701–10719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mapari RB, Kharat G (2016) American static signs recognition using leap motion sensor. In: Proceedings of the Second international conference on information and communication technology for competitive strategies, ACM, p 67Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Moeslund TB, Granum E (2001) A survey of computer vision-based human motion capture. Comput Vis Image Underst 81(3):231–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nai W, Liu Y, Rempel D, Wang Y (2017) Fast hand posture classification using depth features extracted from random line segments. Pattern Recogn 65:1–10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Park S, Park H, Kim J, Adeli H (2015) 3d displacement measurement model for health monitoring of structures using a motion capture system. Measurement 59:352–362. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rao GA, Kishore P (2017) Selfie video based continuous indian sign language recognition system. Ain Shams Engineering Journal.
  40. 40.
    Rucco R, Agosti V, Jacini F, Sorrentino P, Varriale P, Stefano MD, Milan G, Montella P, Sorrentino G (2017) Spatio-temporal and kinematic gait analysis in patients with frontotemporal dementia and alzheimer’s disease through 3d motion capture. Gait Posture 52:312–317. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sandler W (2017) The challenge of sign language phonology. Annual Review of Linguistics 3:43–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sun C, Zhang T, Bao BK, Xu C, Mei T (2013) Discriminative exemplar coding for sign language recognition with kinect. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 43(5):1418–1428. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sun S, Luo C, Chen J (2017) A review of natural language processing techniques for opinion mining systems. Information Fusion 36:10–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sun Y, Bray M, Thayananthan A, Yuan B, Torr P (2006) Regression-based human motion capture from voxel data. In: Procedings of the british machine vision conference 2006. British machine vision associationGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ta AP, Wolf C, Lavoue G, Baskurt A (2010) Recognizing and localizing individual activities through graph matching. In: 2010 7Th IEEE international conference on advanced video and signal based surveillance, IEEE.
  46. 46.
    Xiao Q, Wang Y, Wang H (2014) Motion retrieval using weighted graph matching. Soft Comput 19(1):133–144. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yang C, Cheung G, Stankovic V (2017) Estimating heart rate and rhythm via 3d motion tracking in depth video. IEEE Trans Multimedia 19(7):1625–1636. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zhang W, Liu Z, Zhou L, Leung H, Chan AB (2017) Martial arts, dancing and sports dataset: a challenging stereo and multi-view dataset for 3d human pose estimation. Image Vis Comput 61:22–39. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zhang Z, Kurakin AV Dynamic hand gesture recognition using depth data (2017). US Patent 9,536, 135Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Anil Kumar
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. S. C. S. Sastry
    • 1
  • P. V. V. Kishore
    • 1
  • E. Kiran Kumar
    • 1
  1. 1.Biomechanics and Vision Computing Research Center, Department of Electronics and Communications EngineeringK.L.E.F(Deemed-to-be-University)Guntur (DT)India

Personalised recommendations