2022
DOI: 10.1007/s12652-022-04314-w
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Retraction Note to: Machine learning based sign language recognition: a review and its research frontier

Abstract: The Editor-in-Chief and the publisher have retracted this article. This article was submitted to be part of a guestedited issue. An investigation concluded that the editorial process of this guest-edited issue was compromised by a third party and that the peer review process has been manipulated. Based on the investigation's findings the Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the results and conclusions of this article.The author disagrees with this retraction.Publisher's Note Springer Nature re… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Sign word for predicted class represents each row, and each column represents the correct class in the confusion matrix. Our RTS invariant model produced good accuracy for all classes and correctly classified almost more than 95% accuracy except one class, and the maximum misclassification rate is 5% (mentioned in [4,8] location of the confusion matrix). The performance of the proposed model for each class, and there is a minimal amount of true negative and false positive while producing high accuracy.…”
Section: Performance Evaluation With Rts Version Dataset Of [4]mentioning
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Sign word for predicted class represents each row, and each column represents the correct class in the confusion matrix. Our RTS invariant model produced good accuracy for all classes and correctly classified almost more than 95% accuracy except one class, and the maximum misclassification rate is 5% (mentioned in [4,8] location of the confusion matrix). The performance of the proposed model for each class, and there is a minimal amount of true negative and false positive while producing high accuracy.…”
Section: Performance Evaluation With Rts Version Dataset Of [4]mentioning
confidence: 86%
“…The importance of sign language recognition has increased because of the high growth rate of the deaf and hard-of-hearing population globally and the extended use of vision-based application devices [6,7]. In recent years, many researchers have proposed vision-based sign language recognition by utilizing inputs of the camera, such as 3d camera, web camera and stereo camera [8].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The conventional sensorbased approaches demand extra equipment to be worn by the signer. The use of data gloves, color gloves, depth cameras, and leap motion controllers creates additional overhead for the signer to communicate normally and poses huge limitations [41]. Although it gives good prediction results, drastically loses the scope in real time applications.…”
Section: Table 1: Comparison Of Existing Sl Recognition Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two convincing ways to conceive such systems are: using special devices like Leap Motion Controller (LMC), Kinect sensors, or other motion sensors [4,5]. Another way is vision-based automatic inspection and analysis [6], where researchers perform machine learning and vision-based deep learning to understand Sign Language (SL) [7]. Techniques based on some devices did not arouse well, requiring signers to wear expensive additional devices.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%