skip to main content
10.1145/1296843.1296879acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesassetsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Evaluating American Sign Language generation through the participation of native ASL signers

Published:15 October 2007Publication History

ABSTRACT

We discuss important factors in the design of evaluation studies for systems that generate animations of American Sign Language (ASL) sentences. In particular, we outline how some cultural and linguistic characteristics of members of the American Deaf community must be taken into account so as to ensure the accuracy of evaluations involving these users. Finally, we describe our implementation and user-based evaluation (by native ASL signers) of a prototype ASL generator to produce sentences containing classifier predicates, frequent and complex spatial phenomena that previous ASL generators have not produced.

References

  1. N. Badler, J. Allbeck, S.J. Lee, R. Rabbitz, T. Broderick, & K. Mulkern. 2005. New behavioral paradigms for virtual human models. SAE Digital Human Modeling.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. N. Badler, R. Bindiganavale, J. Allbeck, W. Schuler, L. Zhao, S. Lee, H. Shin, & M. Palmer. 2000. Parameterized action representation & natural language instructions for dynamic behavior modification of embodied agents. AAAI Spring Symposium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. S. Bangalore, O. Rambow, S. Whittaker. 2000. Evaluation Metrics for Generation. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Natural Language Generation. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. R. Coyne and R. Sproat. 2001. WordsEye: an automatic textto-scene conversion system. ACM SIGGRAPH. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. J.A. Holt. 1991. Demographic, Stanford Achievement Test - 8th Edition for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students: Reading Comprehension Subgroup Results.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. M. Huenerfauth. 2006. Representing Coordination and Non-Coordination in American Sign Language Animations. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25:4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. M. Huenerfauth. 2006. Generating American Sign Language Classifier Predicates for English-to-ASL Machine Translation. Dissertation, U. Pennsylvania. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. M. Huenerfauth. In Press. Representing ASL Classifier Predicates Using Spatially Parameterized Planning Templates. In M. T. Banich and D. Caccamise (Eds.), Generalization of Knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. M. Huenerfauth, L. Zhao, E. Gu, & J. Allbeck. 2007. Design and Evaluation of an American Sign Language Generator. 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Workshop on Embodied Language Processing. Prague, Check Republic. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. S. Liddell. 2003. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. UK: Cambridge U. Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. R. E. Mitchell, T. A. Young, B. Bachleda, & M. A. Karchmer. 2006. How Many People Use ASL in the United States? Why Estimates Need Updating. Sign Language Studies, Vol. 6, Number 3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. S. Morrissey & A. Way. 2006. Lost in Translation: The Problems of Using Mainstream MT Evaluation Metrics for Sign Language Translation. 5th SALTMIL Workshop on Minority Languages, LREC-2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. C. Neidle, J. Kegl, D. MacLaughlin, B. Bahan, & R. G. Lee.2000. The Syntax of American Sign Language: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. C. Padden & T. Humphries. 2005. Inside Deaf Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. K. Papineni, S. Roukos, T. Ward, W.-J. Zhu. 2002. BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation, 40th Annual Meeting of Assoc. for Computational Linguistics. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. S. Pasquariello & C. Pelachaud. 2001. Greta: A simple facial animation engine. In 6th Online World Conference on Soft Computing in Industrial Applications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. L. Zhao, K. Kipper, W. Schuler, C. Vogler, N.I. Badler, & M. Palmer. 2000. Machine Translation System from English to American Sign Language. Assoc. for MT in the Americas. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. É. S&3225;fár & I. Marshall. 2001. The architecture of an English text-to-Sign-Languages translation system. Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Evaluating American Sign Language generation through the participation of native ASL signers

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            Assets '07: Proceedings of the 9th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility
            October 2007
            282 pages
            ISBN:9781595935731
            DOI:10.1145/1296843

            Copyright © 2007 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 15 October 2007

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • Article

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate436of1,556submissions,28%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader