activity analysis of sign language video
DESCRIPTION
Activity Analysis of Sign Language Video. Generals exam Neva Cherniavsky. MobileASL goal:. Challenges:. ASL communication using video cell phones over current U.S. cell phone network. Limited network bandwidth Limited processing power on cell phones FAQ. Activity Analysis and MobileASL. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Activity Analysis of Sign Language Video
Generals exam
Neva Cherniavsky
Challenges:• Limited network bandwidth• Limited processing power on cell phones• FAQ
MobileASL goal:• ASL communication using video cell phones over
current U.S. cell phone network
Activity Analysis and MobileASL
• Use qualities unique to sign language– Signing/Not signing/Finger spelling– Information at beginning and ending of signs
Activity Analysis and MobileASL
• Use qualities unique to sign language– Signing/Not signing/Finger spelling– Information at beginning and ending of signs
• Decrease cost of sending video
Activity Analysis and MobileASL
• Use qualities unique to sign language– Signing/Not signing/Finger spelling– Information at beginning and ending of signs
• Decrease cost of sending video– Maximum bandwidth
Activity Analysis and MobileASL
• Use qualities unique to sign language– Signing/Not signing/Finger spelling– Information at beginning and ending of signs
• Decrease cost of sending video– Maximum bandwidth– Total data sent and received
Activity Analysis and MobileASL
• Use qualities unique to sign language– Signing/Not signing/Finger spelling– Information at beginning and ending of signs
• Decrease cost of sending video– Maximum bandwidth– Total data sent and received– Power consumption
Activity Analysis and MobileASL
• Use qualities unique to sign language– Signing/Not signing/Finger spelling– Information at beginning and ending of signs
• Decrease cost of sending video– Maximum bandwidth– Total data sent and received– Power consumption– Processing cost
One Approach: Variable Frame Rate
Variable Frame Rate
• Decrease frame rate during “listening”
• Goal: reduce cost while maintaining or increasing intelligibility– Maximum bandwidth? – Total data sent and received? – Power consumption? – Processing cost?
YESNO
YESYES
Demo
The story so far...
• Showed variable frame rate can reduce cost (25% savings in bit rate)
• Conducted user studies to determine intelligibility of variable frame rate videos– Quality of each frame held constant (data
transmitted decreased with decreased frame rate)
– Lowering frame rate did not affect intelligibility– Freeze frame thought unnatural
Outline
1. Introduction
2. Completed Activity Analysis Researcha. Feature extraction
b. Classification
3. Proposed Activity Analysis Research
4. Timeline to complete dissertation
Activity Analysis, big picture
Raw Data
Feature
Extraction
Classification
Engine
Classification
Modification
Activity Analysis, thus far
Feature
Extraction
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressorare needed to see this picture.QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressorare needed to see this picture.QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressorare needed to see this picture.
, , , ,
Signing, Listening
Classification
Features
H.264 information:
Type of macroblock
Motion vectors
Features cont.
Features:
(x,y) motion vector face
(x,y) motion vector left
(x,y) motion vector right
# of I blocks
Classification
• Train via labeled examples
• Training can be performed offline, testing must be real-time
• Support vector machines
• Hidden Markov models
Support vector machines
• More accurately called support vector classifier
• Separates training data into two classes so that they are maximally apart
Maximum margin hyperplane
Small Margin Large MarginSupport vectors
What if it’s non-linear?
Implementation notes
• May not be separable – Use linear separation, but allow training errors– Higher cost for errors = more accurate model, may
not generalize• libsvm, publicly available Matlab library
– Exhaustive search on training data to choose best parameters
– Radial basis kernel function• As originally published, no temporal information
– Use “sliding window”, keep track of classification– Majority vote gives result
Implementation notes
• May not be separable – Use linear separation, but allow training errors– Higher cost for errors = more accurate model, may
not generalize• libsvm, publicly available Matlab library
– Exhaustive search on training data to choose best parameters
– Radial basis kernel function• As originally published, no temporal information
– Use “sliding window”, keep track of classification– Majority vote gives result
Implementation notes
• May not be separable – Use linear separation, but allow training errors– Higher cost for errors = more accurate model, may
not generalize• libsvm, publicly available Matlab library
– Exhaustive search on training data to choose best parameters
– Radial basis kernel function• As originally published, no temporal information
– Use “sliding window”, keep track of classification– Majority vote gives result
SVM Classification Accuracy
Test video SVM SVM
3 frame
SVM
4 frame
SVM
5 frame
gina1 87.8% 88.8% 87.9% 88.7%
gina2 85.2% 87.4% 90.3% 88.3%
gina3 90.6% 91.3% 91.1% 91.3%
gina4 86.6% 87.1% 87.6% 87.6%
Average 87.6% 88.7% 89.2% 89.0%
Hidden Markov models
• Markov model: finite state model, obeys Markov propertyPr[Xn = x | Xn-1 = xn-1, Xn-2 = xn-2, … X1 = x1]
= Pr [Xn = x | Xn-1 = xn-1]
• Current state depends only on previous state
• Hidden Markov model: states are hidden, infer through observations
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.7
0.5 0.3
0.40.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.60.4
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.2
Different models
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.1
0.1
0.2 0.2
0.20.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.8 0.5
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.7
0.5 0.3
0.40.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.60.4
0.4
0.50.1
0.2
Two ways to solve recognition
1. Given observation sequence O and a choice of models , maximize Pr(O| )
Speech recognition: which word produced observation?
2. Given observation sequence and model, find the most likely state sequence.
Has been used for continuous sign recognition.
??
?
Two ways to solve recognition
1. Given observation sequence O and a choice of models , maximize Pr(O| )
Speech recognition: which word produced observation?
2. Given observation sequence and model, find the most likely state sequence.
Has been used for continuous sign recognition.
??
?
Two ways to solve recognition
1. Given observation sequence O and model , what is Pr(O| )?
Speech recognition: which word produced observation?
2. Given observation sequence and model, find the most likely state sequence.
Has been used for continuous sign recognition [Starner95].
Implementation notes
• Use htk, publicly available library written in C
• Model signing/not signing as “words”– Other possibility is to trace state sequence– Each is a 3 state model, no backward
transitions
• Must include some temporal info, else degenerate (biased coin flip)
• Use 3, 4, and 5 frame window
Implementation notes
• Use htk, publicly available library written in C
• Model signing/not signing as “words”– Other possibility is to trace state sequence– Each is a 3 state model, no backward
transitions
• Must include some temporal info, else degenerate (biased coin flip)
• Use 3, 4, and 5 frame window
HMM Classification Accuracy
Test video HMM
3 frame
HMM
4 frame
HMM
5 frame
Best SVM
gina1 87.3% 88.4% 88.4% 88.8%
gina2 85.4% 86.0% 86.8% 90.3%
gina3 87.3% 88.6% 89.2% 91.3%
gina4 82.6% 82.5% 81.4% 87.6%
Average 85.7% 86.4% 86.5% 89.2%
Outline
1. Motivation
2. Completed Activity Analysis Research
3. Proposed Activity Analysis Researcha. Recognize finger spelling
b. Recognize movement epenthesis
4. Timeline to complete dissertation
Activity Analysis, thus far
Feature
Extraction
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressorare needed to see this picture.QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressorare needed to see this picture.QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressorare needed to see this picture.
, , , ,
Signing, Listening
Classification
Activity Analysis, proposed
Feature
Extraction
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressorare needed to see this picture.QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressorare needed to see this picture.QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressorare needed to see this picture.
, , , ,
Signing, Listening, Finger spelling
Classification
Movement epenthesis
Proposed Research
• Recognize new activity– Finger spelling– Movement epenthesis (= sign segmentation)
• Questions– Why is this valuable?– Is it feasible?– How will it be solved?
Why? Finger spelling
Believe that increased frame rate will increase intelligibility
Will confirm optimal frame rate through user studies
Why? Movement epenthesis• Choose frames so that
low frame rate more intelligible
• Potentially first step in continuous sign language recognition engine
• Irritation must not outweigh savings; verify through user studies
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Is it feasible?
• Previous (somewhat successful) work:– Direct measure device– Rules-based
• Change in motion trajectory, low motion [Sagawa00]
• Finger flexion [Liang98]
• Previous very successful work (98.8%)– Neural Network + direct measure device– Frame classified as left boundary, right
boundary, or interior [Fang01]
Is it feasible?
• Previous (somewhat successful) work:– Direct measure device– Rules-based
• Change in motion trajectory, low motion [Sagawa00]
• Finger flexion [Liang98]
• Previous very successful work (98.8%)– Neural Network + direct measure device– Frame classified as beginning of sign, end of
sign, or interior [Fang01]
How?
• Improved feature extraction– Use the part of sign to inform extraction– See what works from the sign recognition
literature
• Improved classification
Parts of sign
• Handshape– Most work in sign language recognition focused here– Includes expensive techniques (time, power)
• Movement– We only use this right now!– Often implicitly recognized in machine learning
• Location• Palm orientation• Nonmanual signals (facial expression)
Parts of sign
• Handshape– Most work in sign language recognition focused here– Includes expensive techniques (time, power)
• Movement– We only use this right now!– Often implicitly recognized in machine learning
• Location• Palm orientation• Nonmanual signals (facial expression)
Parts of sign
• Handshape– Most work in sign language recognition focused here– Includes expensive techniques (time, power)
• Movement– We only use this right now!– Often implicitly recognized in machine learning
• Location• Palm orientation• Nonmanual signals (facial expression)
Add center of gravity to features
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressorare needed to see this picture.
Parts of sign recognized by center of gravity
• Handshape • Movement• Location• Palm orientation• Nonmanual signals (facial expression)
Accurate COG
• Bayesian filters– Very similar to hidden Markov models– What state are we in, given the (noisy)
observations?– Find posterior pdf of state– Kalman filter, particle filter
• Viola and Jones [01] object detection
Bayesian filters
UpdatePredictKalman: assume linear system, minimize MSE; measure
Particle: sum of weighted samples; measure, update weights
Kalman: add in noise, guess state
Particle: add in noise, guess particle location
How?
• Improved feature extraction
• Improved machine learning– 3 class SVM for finger spelling– State sequence HMM– AdaBoost [Freund97]
AdaBoost (adaptive boosting)
AdaBoost Algorithm
• In each round t = 1 to T:– Train a “weak learner” on weighted data
– ht : features {signing, listening}, error is sum of weights of misclassfied examples
t = 1/2 ln((1 - error)/error)
– Reweight based on error, normalize weights
• Answer is sign(∑t t ht)
Outline
1. Motivation
2. Completed Research
3. Proposed Research
4. Timeline to complete dissertation
Timeline
• October 2007 - March 2008: Recognize signing/listening/finger spelling
• Deadline: Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition, March 28, 2008 1. Bayesian filters for better features. 2. Viola and Jones’s object detection.3. Improve hidden Markov model.4. Evaluate three class support vector machine. 5. Implement AdaBoost, cascade. 6. Experiment with combining these techniques.
Timeline, cont.
• April 2008 - May 2008: Run user study to evaluate optimal frame rate for finger spelling.
• Deadline: ASSETS 2008, May 25, 2008• June 2008 - December 2008: Apply techniques
to the problem of sign segmentation. 1. Evaluate feature set and improve.2. Conduct a user study to evaluate intelligibility of
dropping frames during movement epenthesis. 3. Improve machine learning techniques; implement
combination via decision trees.
• Early 2009: Complete dissertation and defend.
Questions?