Said, Rahaini Mohd
Unknown Affiliation

Published : 1 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 1 Documents
Search

PATTERN CLASSIFICATION SIGN LANGUAGE USING FEATURES DESCRIPTORS AND MACHINE LEARNING Nurhadi, Nurhadi; Winanto, Eko Arip; Said, Rahaini Mohd; Jasmir, Jasmir; Afuan, Lasmedi
Jurnal Teknik Informatika (Jutif) Vol. 5 No. 2 (2024): JUTIF Volume 5, Number 2, April 2024
Publisher : Informatika, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.52436/1.jutif.2024.5.2.1228

Abstract

Sign language is way of communication for the deaf and speech impaired. In Indonesia, the utilization of a standardized language involves the incorporation of American Sign Language (ASL). ASL is employed for various communication needs, ranging from basic alphanumeric fingerspelling (A-Z and numbers) to the more complex SIBI form (comprising gesture vocabulary) in everyday interactions as well as formal contexts. This surge in the digitization of sign language underscores the ongoing advancements in research and development. The challenge in this research lies in the ability to recognize American Sign Language (ASL) with diverse intensities and invariant backgrounds. Therefore, the study emphasis is on proposing a suitable segmentation method comparison for multi-intensity ASL cases. Subsequently, global feature descriptor methods, including Color Histogram, Hu Moments, and Haralick Texture techniques, are applied for feature extraction. The result of the Logistic Regression method versus the supervised Random Forest checks accuracy and suitability in identifying ASL fingerspelling. The findings of this research is predictive value of logistic regression is 48%, with class Y having the highest precision (0.86), class V having the lowest accuracy (0.16), and class L having the highest recall (0.73). The maximum precision in classes B, F, H, I, K, Y, and Z is 1.00, and the lowest in class U is 0.58, while the highest recall is in class G, which is 1.00. The lowest is in class V, while the predictive value from the random forest is 86 percent. Class H has the greatest f1 score (0.99), while class U has the lowest f1 score (0.64). The Random Forest method outperforms the two methods suggested in the paper, according to the comparison.