Slashdot Mirror


Gloves Translate Sign Language Into Auditory Speech

Zothecula writes about some pretty cool sensor gloves. From the article: "Since beginning in 2003, the Microsoft Imagine Cup has tasked students the world over with developing technology aimed at solving real-world problems. In this, its 10th year, students were asked to build their project around a specific Millennium Development Goal ... The winners have just been announced ... [and winning] first place (and US$25,000) in the Software Design category was the Ukraine's quadSquad with their EnableTalk gloves that translate sign language into speech in real time."

58 of 78 comments (clear)

  1. And thousands of interpreters stomachs sank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Another $20 an hour job gone...

    1. Re:And thousands of interpreters stomachs sank by vlm · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wrong translation direction, this going from signs to speech so a deaf person doesn't have to carry a txt2speech or a notepad and pen or learn to speak (yes deaf people can learn to speak, like one of my friends did, confuses the hell out of people who assume being able to speak means being able to hear)

      Another thing is one of my kids former school teachers worked her way thru school in the opposite direction translating speech to signs. The general impression I got was it was much closer to the fry cook pay level than the $20 claimed above. You can get $20 if you have deep technical knowledge and translate tech docs from english to Chinese, or if you have a security clearance and know Arabic or other ME languages, but...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:And thousands of interpreters stomachs sank by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      My wife contracts around $30/hr - so it's a bit more than fry cook. I think that it varies widely from region to region though.

    3. Re:And thousands of interpreters stomachs sank by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Funny

      So what would the translation be if you used the gloves to masturbate?

      a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:And thousands of interpreters stomachs sank by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      being able to speak means being able to hear

      A lot of folks I've met can't or don't want to do the latter . . . especially politicians and managers . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:And thousands of interpreters stomachs sank by dunnomattic · · Score: 1

      So what would the translation be if you used the gloves to masturbate?

      a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

      In all honesty, it's closer to :
      O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

      ps - My wife is an interpreter for the deaf

      --
      ...when everything is a crime, everyone is a criminal.
    6. Re:And thousands of interpreters stomachs sank by optimism · · Score: 1

      Wrong translation direction, this going from signs to speech so a deaf person doesn't have to carry a txt2speech or a notepad and pen or learn to speak

      If you read TFA, it was designed for people "with hearing and speech disabilities".

      Learning to speak is a big hurdle for many deaf people, but it is an insurmountable hurdle for those who are mute, even if they can hear.

      Anyway. If you're going to wear a computerized glove that can speak for you, it seems that a chorded keyboard would be a much better choice. Faster, more accurate, and more expressive than an ASL translator.

    7. Re:And thousands of interpreters stomachs sank by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      So what would the translation be if you used the gloves to masturbate?

      a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

      In all honesty, it's closer to : O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

      Well, that all depends on the size of the "ship," now doesn't it? Methinks thou art giving AC a wee bit too much credit in regards to the size of their dinghy.

      ps - My wife is an interpreter for the deaf

      That's pretty awesome man, no sarc. FWIW, one of my closest cousins is deaf, so I've learned quite a bit of sign language by proxy, although most of what he has taught me cannot be repeated in polite conversation...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    8. Re:And thousands of interpreters stomachs sank by EkriirkE · · Score: 1

      To be fair, maybe he cups instead of encircles (I.. ahem.. know something about this...). If the thumb is parallel to the other fingers, it could be interpreted as "a a a a a ..."

      --
      from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
    9. Re:And thousands of interpreters stomachs sank by Jappus · · Score: 1

      That is not not something Ayn Rand was the first to state. It's even older than basic capitalism. For example, the ancient Greek and Romans knew that while slave labour was bad for the slave, it was essential for their society, and thus a net-gain for it.

      But as you can quite clearly see, whether a net-gain for society is morally good or wrong depends on what kind of society you are talking about.

      And then of course, the windowmaker-fallacy is also not very far away. Just because you break a window and give a window-maker a new job, that doesn't mean that it's a net-gain.

      As good and as valuable as more automation is (after all, for most people the times of 60h+ working weeks are long over), there are some corner-cases where its over-all effect can be and is damaging.

  2. Old News... by inthealpine · · Score: 5, Funny

    Until I see a gorilla using them to talk about a secret diamond mine, I'm unimpressed.

    --
    "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
    1. Re:Old News... by wickedskaman · · Score: 1

      THIS.

      --
      Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
    2. Re:Old News... by AtomicBison · · Score: 1

      Amy, good Gorilla. Amy pretty. Amy love you.

      This is immediately what I thought of when I read the headline as well!

  3. Obvious...after you see it by tomhath · · Score: 1

    This is a cool idea. But it kind of only goes half way. Now they need a Thing that can translate spoken speech into glove movements. Oh, yea, baby!

    1. Re:Obvious...after you see it by VoidVector · · Score: 1

      That can easily be accomplished using Speech-to-Text then Text-to-Sign.

    2. Re:Obvious...after you see it by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      Or just into words? Most people that understand sign language also understand written language.

    3. Re:Obvious...after you see it by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Funny

      With that kind of glove, deaf people could say "Talk to the hand, because the ear's not listening!"

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:Obvious...after you see it by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      So, this device only actually allows the signer to sign letters that can be used to spell words, rather than translating full words and phrases.

      If that's all they were going for, then I already have a tried and true set of devices that allows for the two-way communication you're talking about, and it's far cheaper, to boot.

      Paper and pencil.

    5. Re:Obvious...after you see it by Riceballsan · · Score: 1

      Well considering deaf people are the large majority of who needs this technology. A good portion of them are particularly good lip readers. Especially ones who are in the habit of being around non-deaf people. So them telling you what they want, is a tenfold larger challenge then them understanding your response.

    6. Re:Obvious...after you see it by tomhath · · Score: 1

      At least one person kind of got the joke.

    7. Re:Obvious...after you see it by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      I don't know, not all lip reading is so clear cut

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    8. Re:Obvious...after you see it by Dthief · · Score: 1

      or a small flexible keyboard on your hand, bluetoothed to the phone

      --
      www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
  4. From TFA: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Although the software was developed under Windows Phone 7, the team was forced to turn to the older Windows Mobile platform for their entry because Windows Phone 7 doesn’t provide developers access to the Bluetooth stack, which is how the gloves communicate wirelessly with a mobile device running the translation software."

    And that tells me all I need to know about WP7!

  5. No, it translates fingerspelling into speech by wanderfowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After watching the video, it seems that what they've done is create gloves which recognize the various fingerspelling signs. If somebody wants to sign "I need to withdraw money" (like, at a bank), what this allows them to do is to make the sign for "I", then "N, E, E, D", then "T,O", and so forth. Then the gloves feed that output into a TTS system. This works (because ASL users and English speakers share a writing system), but is horribly inefficient, and would be equivalent to a translation module that makes you speak every letter of the written words individually before putting the words into Spanish.

    This is fundamentally different from "translating sign language", where the gloves would recognize the (much more complex and spatially oriented) sign for "I", for "need", for "withdraw" and for "money", and then translate that into "I need to withdraw money" and speak it aloud. Adding in the fact that ASL syntax is fundamentally different than in English, it's quite a tall order. Interpreters need not fear.

    This is cool, nobody's denying that, and for some jobs, this might be great, but at the moment, I don't see it working much faster than taking out the requisite smartphone and writing down what you're trying to get across.

    1. Re:No, it translates fingerspelling into speech by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      I came here to say what you said. There's quite a ways to go on this Sign language is conceptual - they sign the concepts, not the literal words. To complete it, they need to add a display that will do speech to text for the other person. At that point, the interpreters might start to worry.

    2. Re:No, it translates fingerspelling into speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      After watching the video, it seems that what they've done is create gloves which recognize the various fingerspelling signs. If somebody wants to sign "I need to withdraw money" (like, at a bank), what this allows them to do is to make the sign for "I", then "N, E, E, D", then "T,O", and so forth. Then the gloves feed that output into a TTS system. This works (because ASL users and English speakers share a writing system), but is horribly inefficient, and would be equivalent to a translation module that makes you speak every letter of the written words individually before putting the words into Spanish.

      This is fundamentally different from "translating sign language", where the gloves would recognize the (much more complex and spatially oriented) sign for "I", for "need", for "withdraw" and for "money", and then translate that into "I need to withdraw money" and speak it aloud. Adding in the fact that ASL syntax is fundamentally different than in English, it's quite a tall order. Interpreters need not fear.

      This is cool, nobody's denying that, and for some jobs, this might be great, but at the moment, I don't see it working much faster than taking out the requisite smartphone and writing down what you're trying to get across.

      I work with a deaf person, and believe me, they can sign incredibly fast. I reckon that he could say something simple "do you want to get lunch" fast enough with finger spelling that it'd sound completely normal speed to me. Sure, adding memory for all the words for various languages would be neat (very hard though), but for now, it's quite useful. Keep in mind that they don't always carry paper/phones with them, so sometimes the only option is to sign.

    3. Re:No, it translates fingerspelling into speech by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Finger spelling is not how ASL normally works though.

      Think of even simple phrases like "thank you" no finger spelling involved.

      If they have to carry this device to finger spell they might as well use the phone it is connected to type out the message. If they are not carrying anything than this device would do them no good.

    4. Re:No, it translates fingerspelling into speech by cwgmpls · · Score: 1

      Ask your coworker. They are signing, not finger spelling. Big, big difference. Using the money from this project to teach people about the difference would be much more beneficial to everyone.

    5. Re:No, it translates fingerspelling into speech by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

      You are right in every aspect, but you also have to factor in that this is was merely a student project. It serves extraordinary well as proof of concept. Now someone (perhaps MS?) needs to focus on it and improve it by making it able to translate the actual sign language gestures. If fingerspelling is possible, the jump to sign language should be not that hard.

    6. Re:No, it translates fingerspelling into speech by catmistake · · Score: 1

      where the gloves would recognize the (much more complex and spatially oriented) sign for "I"

      Actually, the sign for "I" and the sign for the letter "i" are pretty much identical... but your excessively intensified and outrageously exaggerated point is well taken.

  6. Why not just use a cellphone? by scorp1us · · Score: 1

    With a text to speech app?

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    1. Re:Why not just use a cellphone? by Kergan · · Score: 1

      With a text to speech app?

      Presumably because it's faster to sign than it is to type, in much the same way as it's faster to speak than it is to type.

    2. Re:Why not just use a cellphone? by cwgmpls · · Score: 2

      Presumably, but its not. These gloves transcribe finger spelling. Finger spelling is not a separate language, it does not require translation, and no deaf people use it as their primary form of communication. Any deaf person who knows how to type can easily type faster than they can finger spell.

    3. Re:Why not just use a cellphone? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      With a text to speech app?

      Presumably because it's faster to sign than it is to type, in much the same way as it's faster to speak than it is to type.

      Indeed, it is.

      Unfortunately, the glove does not translate sign language, but rather transcribes finger spelling.

      In this case, the text-to-speech app would be superior.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  7. Not going to work by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Informative

    The gloves translate dactylology (finger spelling). That's fairly easy, but it's horribly inefficient.

    'Real' sign languages (like ASL) are much harder to translate because they are somewhat non-linear. A single gesture can describe several things at once: size, direction, emotional state, etc. There's no way you can translate it without fully understanding the context of the speech. And we all know how good computers are at such tasks...

    1. Re:Not going to work by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Also ASL does not have articles, so it does not translate directly to english. It is really a visual spatial language, people always seem to miss that.

  8. Re:Bravo by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

    Only if they spell out each word, which is not generally what ASL users do. Even many phrases, my limited knowledge of includes "Thank You" which is one motion, not spelling out the words.

  9. Done over 25 years ago. by Animats · · Score: 1

    A grad student at Stanford at the Center for Design Research did this in the mid-1980s. It had to be connected to a workstation back then, of course.

  10. Finger Spelling is NOT Sign Language by cwgmpls · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mod parent up! Finger Spelling is *not* Sign Language. If all this does is translate finger spelling into synthesized speech, the same thing could be done much faster and cheaper by just typing the words on a standard smartphone device.

    This is not even cool. It is just, plain, wrong in so many ways. All of the money and hype spent making and marketing this device would reap 10X as much benefit if the same money were spent educating people about the real nature of deafness and sign language. The developers of this waste of time could start by taking a class about deafness themselves.

    The fact that Slashdot perpetuates the inaccurate headline equating finger spelling with sign language just demonstrates how ignorant we all are.

    1. Re:Finger Spelling is NOT Sign Language by IcyWolfy · · Score: 1

      And the next question is... which finger spelling language are they translating? American? Irish? British? Australian? International (a mish-mash of English finger-spelling systems) ... every language uses a different set.

    2. Re:Finger Spelling is NOT Sign Language by cwgmpls · · Score: 2

      They are not translating anything. They are transcribing within the same language. In the demo clip I saw, they are transcribing from English fingerspelling to English speech. There is no translation involved. You are right, even within a language, there can be regional variations. American fingerspelling differs from British. But they are transcribing, not translating.

    3. Re:Finger Spelling is NOT Sign Language by cwgmpls · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they aren't the first people to exploit pity for others to make money, out of total ignorance.

    4. Re:Finger Spelling is NOT Sign Language by Jyms · · Score: 1

      I am with you. We (http://www.coe.uwc.ac.za/index.php/SASL.html) have been working on this for a while. We are totally ignoring finger spelling for sign recognition and rendering.

  11. Re:Didn't I see this in Congo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ^ This is exactly the kind of post /. will be filled with the day transporters or flying cars are actually built.

  12. Car analogy - well sort of by Mattygfunk1 · · Score: 1

    Close palm, raise middle finger. Universal language at it's best.

    1. Re:Car analogy - well sort of by Mattygfunk1 · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

    2. Re:Car analogy - well sort of by antdude · · Score: 1

      FYI, it's = it is. ..!.. too. :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  13. If the alphabet is all there is to English... by rk · · Score: 1

    Then I guess it translates sign language. Finger-spelling is just an alphabet. I don't know about other sign languages, but ASL is a full language with its own grammar and conventions, and it would take a lot more than a glove to interpret it. Positions of hands with respect to the body are important, as are facial expressions, and ASL's pronoun system is largely spatial with the handshape only indicating the type of pronoun (e.g. personal vs. possessive). Even if a piece of technology could reliably capture and interpret all that information, you're still back at the problem of natural language translation into the destination language.

    Still, a cool hack.

    1. Re:If the alphabet is all there is to English... by IcyWolfy · · Score: 1

      And it just translates American Spelling Alphabet (French). Which is mostly one handed spelling.
      It would bomb horribly trying to understand any British (English) based finger-spelling, which is two-handed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:British_Sign_Language_chart.png

  14. Re:Bravo by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    This actually does solve a real world problem

    Use case?

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  15. Re:Bravo by crashumbc · · Score: 1

    It very much DOES, just not in the most efficient way.

    while this may have limited to no REAL value at the moment, there were a LOT of saying the EXACT same thing about the internet in 92-94.

    You naysayers might want to think about that.

  16. Re:Bravo by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    I just want to know the use case. What if it were perfect and could precisely translate sign language into spoken or printed English - what advantage would it hold over a keyboard or smartphone or even a pen and paper? Plus, many (most?) deaf people can speak.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  17. Re:Offended by zztzed · · Score: 1

    While I suspect that was a joke, in theory Kinect would actually be a better platform upon which to build an ASL-to-English translator, if not for the fact that the skeletal data it provides does not include fingers.

  18. Re:Offended by optimism · · Score: 1

    And the fact that you'd need to wear some kind of exoskeleton that mounts the sensor far forward of your body, so it can see what your hands and arms and face are doing.

    Mobility is the point here. If you can sit at a computer, you can just type instead.

    Of course you can just type on a smartphone too, without wearing a freaky bulky obtrusive glove. But others have already mentioned that.

  19. Re:Bravo by crashumbc · · Score: 1

    Maybe your mute? you can't speak. sign language (real sign language) is much faster then typing or writing from what I understand. Wear the gloves leave your phone in your pocket, wear a small speaker around your neck. You look fairly normal standing at the bank instead of like a freak waving a clip board.

    keep in mind to do sign language, you don't need to be able to see your hands like with typing. you don't have to fish a device out your pocket every time you want to talk...

    It would be perfect for any situation where speaking isn't possible. and maybe even typing

      Loud machine rooms? built in speakers in the sound protection gear.
    scuba diving?
    someone on a respirator?

    I'm not saying it would be a airplane or internet, level game changer but I could seriously see folks coming up with some nifty uses for this.

    Actually more I sit thinking about it more game changing I think this COULD be... ( if perfected of course)

  20. Re:Bravo by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    You are right I suppose - if they could get it to do more than just simple letter signs (which are slower than typing). And if they could get it to translate sign to English. And if you could still use your hands while wearing the gloves.

    But I gotta tellya, when stuff like this is happening, the uses for something that depends on exaggerated hand motions seems to diminish :)

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  21. Re:Bravo by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    Maybe your mute? you can't speak. sign language (real sign language) is much faster then typing or writing from what I understand.

    If true, this is the really interesting part. If signs could be interpreted like typing, but faster, the gloves would replace keyboards in a way that voice-to-text can never do, even if done perfectly.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  22. Re:"Auditory Speech" by ryzvonusef · · Score: 1

    Olfactory Smelling.

    I am anosmic, you insensitive clod!

    (btw, I really am anosmic, a smelling device would be awesome :p)

    --
    I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!