Development of ML model for triboelectric nanogenerator based sign language detection system
Organizations: Department of ICT, Pandit Deendayal Energy University, Gandhinagar, India · Department of Physics, Rajiv Gandhi University, Rono Hills, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh
Abstract
Sign language recognition (SLR) is vital for bridging communication gaps between deaf and hearing communities. Vision-based approaches suffer from occlusion, computational costs, and physical constraints. This work presents a comparison of machine learning (ML) and deep learning models for a custom triboelectric nanogenerator (TENG)-based sensor glove. Utilizing multivariate time-series data from five flex sensors, the study benchmarks traditional ML algorithms, feedforward neural networks, LSTM-based temporal models, and a multi-sensor MFCC CNN-LSTM architecture across 11 sign classes (digits 1-5, letters A-F). The proposed MFCC CNN-LSTM architecture processes frequency-domain features from each sensor through independent convolutional branches before fusion. It achieves 93.33% accuracy and 95.56% precision, a 23-point improvement over the best ML algorithm (Random Forest: 70.38%). Ablation studies reveal 50-timestep windows offer a tradeoff between temporal context and training data volume, yielding 84.13% accuracy compared to 58.06% with 100-timestep windows. MFCC feature extraction maps temporal variations to execution-speed-invariant spectral representations, and data augmentation methods (time warping, noise injection) are essential for generalization. Results demonstrate that frequency-domain feature representations combined with parallel multi-sensor processing architectures offer enhancement over classical algorithms and time-domain deep learning for wearable sensor-based gesture recognition. This aids assistive technology development.
Figures & tables
| Model | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1-Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MFCC CNN-LSTM | 93.33% | 95.56% | 93.33% | 92.89% |
| LSTM (Window 50) | 84.13% | 83.40% | 84.13% | 82.62% |
| Comprehensive LSTM | 82.54% | 83.96% | 82.54% | 82.72% |
| Random Forest | 70.38% | 70.53% | 70.38% | 70.35% |
| Reference | Sensor Type | Gestures | Best Accuracy | Method |
| Ji et al. [ 16 ] | IMU (16-node) | 20 dynamic | 98.85% | Attention-BiLSTM |
| Zhu et al. [ 17 ] | Fiber optic | 12 | 95% | ML-assisted |
| This work | STENG (ZnO) | 11 static | 93.33% | MFCC CNN-LSTM |
| Window | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1-Score | Epochs | Chunks |
| Size | ||||||
| 50 | 84.13% | 83.40% | 84.13% | 82.62% | 121 | 415 |
| 75 | 66.67% | 62.67% | 66.67% | 60.20% | 61 | 274 |
| 100 | 58.06% | 54.95% | 58.06% | 51.47% | 88 | 205 |
| Model | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1-Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Random Forest | 70.38% | 70.53% | 70.38% | 70.35% |
| K-Nearest Neighbors | 68.64% | 69.16% | 68.64% | 68.81% |
| Gradient Boosting | 58.12% | 58.61% | 58.12% | 57.99% |
| Decision Tree | 57.60% | 57.85% | 57.60% | 57.69% |
| Support Vector Machine | 56.88% | 60.10% | 56.88% | 57.20% |
Sign Language Recognition
Sign language recognition uses video, images, or sensor data to identify signs, fingerspelling, and continuous signing across people and settings.
See all 56 papers