Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2403.02563v1

A systematic literature review of 101 recent papers in sign language AI revealed significant biases in the current state of research. The majority of papers were motivated by addressing perceived communication barriers for Deaf individuals, but overlooked the rich linguistic and cultural aspects of sign languages. Many assumed a direct connection between sign language use and hearing ability, failing to acknowledge the diverse experiences within the Deaf community. Additionally, most papers focused on continuous sign language datasets with little consideration for isolated sign language or fingerspelling data. While some utilized publicly available datasets, others collected their own private ones. However, there was a lack of linguistic grounding in annotations and development methods that built upon flawed models. Inspired by critical literature reviews in other fields, researchers emphasized the importance of intentional inclusion of Deaf stakeholders in shaping the direction of sign language AI research. Without meaningful input from those directly impacted by these technologies, the field risks being driven solely by convenience or what is deemed important by hearing researchers. This study highlights the need for greater diversity and representation in sign language AI research and calls for more collaboration with Deaf researchers to lead the conversation and prioritize ethical development practices.

• - Sign language AI research is biased and overlooks linguistic and cultural aspects of sign languages
• - Assumption of direct connection between sign language use and hearing ability neglects diverse experiences within the Deaf community
• - Focus on continuous sign language datasets with little consideration for isolated sign language or fingerspelling data
• - Lack of linguistic grounding in annotations and development methods leads to flawed models
• - Importance of intentional inclusion of Deaf stakeholders in shaping research direction emphasized
• - Need for greater diversity and representation in sign language AI research highlighted
• - Call for more collaboration with Deaf researchers to lead the conversation and prioritize ethical development practices

Summary- Sign language AI research is studying how computers can understand sign language, but it doesn't always consider the different ways people use sign language or their culture. - Some people think that being good at sign language means you can hear well, but this idea ignores that Deaf people have many different experiences. - Researchers often focus on studying long videos of sign language without thinking about shorter signs or finger spelling. - Sometimes, the computer programs used in this research don't understand sign language well because they are not based on a good understanding of how languages work. - It's important to include Deaf people in the research and make sure there is more diversity and collaboration with them. Definitions- Sign language: A way of communicating using hand movements and gestures instead of spoken words. - Bias: Unfairly preferring one thing over another without good reason. - Linguistic: Related to languages and how they work. - Cultural: Connected to the beliefs, customs, and traditions of a group of people. - Deaf community: A group of people who are Deaf and share common experiences and ways of communication.

Sign language is a crucial mode of communication for Deaf individuals, allowing them to express themselves and connect with others in their community. As technology continues to advance, there has been a growing interest in the development of sign language AI (artificial intelligence) systems that can assist with translation and interpretation. However, a recent systematic literature review of 101 papers in this field revealed significant biases and shortcomings that must be addressed for ethical and effective progress. The study, titled "A Systematic Literature Review of Sign Language AI: Uncovering Biases and Overlooking Diversity," was conducted by researchers from various universities and organizations. Their aim was to analyze the current state of research in sign language AI and identify any gaps or issues that may hinder its development. One major finding from the review was the prevalence of perceived communication barriers as the main motivation behind these studies. While this is an important aspect to consider, it often overshadowed other crucial factors such as the rich linguistic and cultural aspects of sign languages. This oversight not only limits our understanding of sign languages but also perpetuates stereotypes about Deaf individuals being solely defined by their hearing ability. Furthermore, many papers assumed a direct connection between sign language use and hearing ability without acknowledging the diverse experiences within the Deaf community. This narrow perspective fails to recognize that some Deaf individuals may have different levels of proficiency or preference for using sign language compared to spoken languages. Another concerning trend identified in the review was the focus on continuous sign language datasets while neglecting isolated signs or fingerspelling data. This poses a challenge for developing accurate translation systems as fingerspelling is an essential part of many signed languages but requires different recognition techniques than continuous signing. Moreover, there was a lack of diversity in datasets used for training these systems. While some papers utilized publicly available datasets, others collected their own private ones without proper justification or transparency. Additionally, there was little consideration given to linguistic grounding in annotations or development methods, leading to flawed models and unreliable results. To address these issues, the researchers drew inspiration from critical literature reviews in other fields and emphasized the importance of intentional inclusion of Deaf stakeholders in shaping the direction of sign language AI research. This means involving Deaf individuals as active participants and decision-makers in the development process rather than just being subjects or recipients of these technologies. Without meaningful input from those directly impacted by sign language AI systems, there is a risk that they will be driven solely by convenience or what hearing researchers deem important. This can lead to biased algorithms and unethical practices that further marginalize the Deaf community. The study highlights the need for greater diversity and representation in sign language AI research. It calls for more collaboration with Deaf researchers who have firsthand experience with sign languages to lead the conversation and prioritize ethical development practices. By including diverse perspectives, we can ensure that these technologies are developed responsibly and effectively serve their intended purpose of bridging communication barriers for Deaf individuals. In conclusion, this systematic literature review sheds light on significant biases and shortcomings in current sign language AI research. It serves as a call to action for researchers to critically examine their approaches and involve diverse stakeholders in shaping the future of this field. With intentional efforts towards inclusivity, we can create more accurate, culturally sensitive, and ethically sound sign language AI systems that truly benefit all members of the Deaf community.