Week 4 Literature Review (Computer Vision and Gesture Analysis)

timer Asked: Oct 16th, 2018
account_balance_wallet $9.99

Question Description

Literature Review:

  • Watch the video “Literature Review
  • Review the attached Literature Review documents
  • Write a literature review paper on the topic created in week 1. (Computer Vision and Gesture Analysis)

Your paper must consist of the following:

  • Be organized by categories or themes using sub-headings, as needed.
  • Include an introduction to the literature.
  • Thoroughly compare literature (not an annotated bibliography.)
  • Summarize.
  • Contain 8 to 12 peer-reviewed, scholarly references published within the past 5 years.
  • Follow the formatting guidelines in The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2010), (6th ed., 7th printing).
  • Contain scholarly references.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Conducting a Literature Review Jennifer Rowley; Frances Slack Management Research News; 2004; 27, 6; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 31 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Extract from Constructing a Good Dissertation A Practical Guide to Finishing a Master’s, MBA or PhD on Schedule Erik Hofstee Copyright © Erik Hofstee 2006. All rights reserved. Please do not make multiple copies or alter this sample chapter without our written permission. 247 mm x 170 mm / SC / 320 pages ISBN: 0-9585007-1-1 Website: www.exactica.co.za A man who reviews the old so as to find out the new is qualified to teach others. – Confucius CHAPTER 1 THE LITERATURE REVIEW The literature review always comes after the introduction and before the method chapter. This makes sense: In the introduction, you’ve told your reader what you’re going to do and you’ve intrigued them enough to read on. Now it’s time to locate them solidly in the secondary literature. The ‘secondary literature’ is the body of works previously published by other scholars. You need to identify and review those relevant to your work. A good literature review is comprehensive, critical and contextualised. That means that it will provide the reader with a theory base, a survey of published works that pertain to your investigation, and an analysis of that work. It is a critical, factual overview of what has gone before. The literature review is not the place to present research data of your own (unless it has been previously published, that is). It contains secondary sources only. THE PURPOSE OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW A literature review serves several purposes in your dissertation. A good literature review shows  that you are aware of what is going on in the field, and thus your credentials  that there is a theory base for the work you are proposing to do  how your work fits in with what has already been done (it provides a detailed context for your work)  that your work has significance  that your work will lead to new knowledge. Let’s take them one by one. Your Credentials Readers will not take either you or your work terribly seriously unless you manage to convince them that you are well read in whatever it is that you are investigating. ‘Well read’, by the way, means that you have read broadly in your field and that you understand the important works in depth. If your literature review is any good, there 91 PART 2 THE DISSERTATION won’t be much room left for doubt on either point. By your selection of works, organising them in a way that makes sense, discussing them objectively, and focussing on the important bits, you will have established your credentials. Theory Base This is a part of the literature review that poses a major problem for many students. In it, you need to show that you understand and can relate your work to the major theories that underpin what you are going to do. To understand what a theory base is, one needs to understand what the word ‘theory’ means in academic terms. In popular terms, the word implies fuzziness, guesswork and unreliability. In academic terms, a ‘theory’ is a logical explanation for why something is as it is or does as it does. Theories are not cast in stone – something may come along and disprove them tomorrow – but they are the best explanations we currently have. The more general a theory is – i.e. the more it explains without the facts contradicting it – the better a theory it is. In the exact sciences, theories are often testable and have predictive power. In the social sciences and humanities, this is not as often the case, but they are still logical interpretations and explanations that help us make sense of the world around us. Look at it this way: If you were developing a new product, paint perhaps, you wouldn’t just throw a lot of ingredients together. If you randomly combined sand, bolts, tonic water, flour and paper, you would make a mess, not paint. If, on the other hand, you understood the theory behind what makes paint, you would probably use the key ingredients that the theory predicts would make paint. You would know what they are and why they work. You might add some new ingredients or combine old ones in a new way, but your work would be based on theory. It would have a theory base. On the basis of theory you would be able to explain, before you even made your new paint, why it would be likely to work. The same thing applies to all academic work. For example, it is one thing to devise a new system to teach children to read at an early age; it is another to prove that it works. Assuming that it does work, an explanation of why it works is the theory behind it. There will be certain principles that cause it to work. Naming those will be the basis of the theory. The theory might ultimately be wrong, right, or partially right, but until contradicted by facts it is a possible explanation. If something has no theory base whatsoever – for example, using the density of traffic in the morning to predict the yield of next year’s maize crop – it’s unlikely to produce interesting or valid results. If no one has thought of any reasonable explanations for why something might work and you can’t either, it probably won’t work. A theory base is necessary for readers to take your work seriously. It is possible, even likely, that there will be several conflicting theories about why something is the way it is. For example, there are several competing theories 92 The Literature Review accounting for the different roles men and women have played in society, ranging from purely cultural theories to genetic ones, with many variations and spin-offs. If you are required to include a theory base in your dissertation, you need to hunt down the major explanatory theories that pertain to what you are doing and comment on them as they relate to your work. Do consult with your supervisor when doing this part of the literature review – he or she will know the theories and the main players. Context What you need to do here is to locate your work in the work of others. It must be clear to the reader how what you are proposing to do fits in with what has gone before. By discussing the works related to what you’re going to do and focussing on the ones most closely related, the context of your work will automatically be clear. This one is closely related to the next point, significance. Significance After reading your literature review, there should be little doubt in readers’ minds that your work has some significance. You will have gone quite some way towards making the case in your introduction but, by grounding your proposed work in the previous literature, you will show the significance of your work. If you structure your literature review according to the funnel method described below, the significance of your work will emerge automatically. If you want to emphasise the significance and originality of your work, when you review the work of other scholars, gently point out, where you can, omissions or inadequacies in their work as it relates to what is original in your work. Don’t do this too often or too blatantly. If you do, it will become transparent and irritating. But you certainly can put in a few well-placed remarks to the effect that “while contributing in this and that regard, unfortunately So-and-so’s work does not address [your originality]” or “So-and-so’s major contribution was this, that and the other. However, he fails to consider his point in the South African environment” [while you do]. Originality If you have reviewed the related work of other scholars and you have not found anything that precisely duplicates what you are going to do, then your work must be original – if your literature review has been at all comprehensive, that is. This, incidentally, is one of the reasons why it is so important that your literature review focuses on the most closely related and most current work. It’s how you show that what you are planning to do hasn’t already been overtaken by work already published. There are exceptions to the originality requirement. For example, if you are precisely duplicating the work of someone else in order to check its validity, obviously there’s not much room for originality. Your originality then lies in your 93 PART 2 THE DISSERTATION thesis statement only: You will hypothesise that the work either can or cannot be replicated. Similarly, a meta-study also leaves little room for originality. STRUCTURING THE LITERATURE REVIEW Given the number of works that literature reviews can contain and the importance of balance having a good structure for your literature review is vital. The funnel method will bring order to your literature review. It will also make it much easier to write because it provides you with a built-in structure. The ‘funnel method’ of structuring a literature review as shown in Figure 2-1 below is designed to make sure that all the objectives of the literature review are met automatically. Applied properly, your credentials and originality, as well as the theory base, context and significance of your work will all emerge without further effort on your part. Categorising Works The first rule of the funnel method is to group works by commonality. This applies regardless of topic or thesis statement. It does not matter if you include articles, books or any other type of secondary sources in a group: If they have something in common, they should be grouped together. There is no formula for what commonalities you should choose, or into how many groups you separate the works. Whatever seems to you to link works together is what you should choose. They could be linked by the focus of works or by how they relate to major facets of your work. Whatever substantial similarities you find are potential groups. One of the groups should, however, should be ‘Theory Base’. Be sure to use your index cards when grouping the works. If you have followed the advice in Index Cards, you should have at least one index card (and probably more) with comments written on it for every work that you are going to include in your literature review. These cards are invaluable when it comes to helping you group works and for structuring the actual discussion of each group. To group the works to be reviewed, first read through all your index cards labelled Literature Review. As you read, keep an eye open for possible categories in which to group works. As you spot possible categories, think of a name for the category and write that on a separate index card (preferably a different colour). The closer the name you give to the category relates to whatever it is that links the works, the better. By the time you’ve gone through all your literature review cards, you should have a fair number of possible categories. Go through them one more time, just to be sure that there are no duplications of categories (if so, combine them) and to be sure that you haven’t missed a possible category. If new possible categories occur to you as you 94 The Literature Review do this, give them a name and write that on a separate index card too. Then make a list of those possible categories. Go over the list of possible categories, checking for logic and completeness, making the necessary changes as you do. Then go through all the literature review index cards again, this time sorting them into their categories. If there are some cards left over that don’t seem to fit into any category, read them carefully. If you made a card for the work, and labelled it Literature Review, you must have thought that something about that work was worth including in your literature review. Name what that ‘something’ was and, if you have a category to which it relates, put it in that category. If you don’t have a category where it fits, then make a new category.  Sometimes you may find that a particular work belongs in more than one category. In that case, you need to find the dominant category and that’s where you should place it. If you really can’t choose one category over another, only then make a copy of the index card and put it in both category piles. Try to avoid this as much as possible, because it will lead to your discussing the same work (albeit different aspects of it) more than once in your literature review. You should now have all the works that you want to include in your literature review in at least one category. You will have several distinct piles, all with several works in them. Some may contain many cards, others only a few. That’s okay. The important thing at this stage is that you have brought some form of order to all the works you need to include in your review. Once you’ve completed this part – and it may take several iterations till you are satisfied – you have the basis to structure your literature review. Your next step is to place the categories in a logical order. The order should be as shown in the drawing of the funnel below. The categories – your stacks of index cards – are the balls in the funnel. Ordering Categories The first category you need to deal with contains the works that provide a theory base for your work. They come first in the literature review because they give the reader the big picture. The internal order of the theory base category should reflect the major theories that pertain to your work. You should group the cards in this pile according to which theory the works are the closest to. Start the discussion of each theory with the classic works about that theory. Then comment on later works that either extended or argued against that theory, before moving on to the next theory. 95 PART 2 THE DISSERTATION Figure 22-1. The funnel method of structuring a literature review The balls in the top of the funnel are categories of works that are relevant to your investigation, but do not specifically address what you are doing. They will have more to do with your topic than with your thesis statement. They will tend to contain a lot of works per category, which makes sense because there will be more works that are generally relevant than there will be works that are specifically related to what you are doing. You should discuss generally relevant works briefly, concentrating on the aspects most relevant to your work. The better or more helpful to you any of these works are, the more you should comment on them. But don’t go into too much detail. Keep it short. The next layer of works will be works that are closer to what you are doing, but still do not match directly. There will be fewer works per category, but you should deal with them in a bit more detail, as they relate more closely to (an aspect of) your work. 96 The Literature Review As you move down in your literature review funnel, the categories should get closer and closer to the research that you are going to undertake. Eventually you may find that a category contains only two or three, or possibly even one work. And that’s okay, because it is directly relevant to what you are investigating. You may spend several paragraphs reviewing just one article when you get to the bottom of your literature review: It is important to what you are going to do, so it makes sense to discuss it in detail. If you pay attention to your paragraph introductions and conclusions, you will guide the reader seamlessly from one group of works to the next. The whole will read as a unit, conceptualised as such from the outset. The Internal Order of Categories Internally, your categories should also have an order. The fact that the works are in the same category is your point of departure. They must have something that links them or else they wouldn’t be in the same pile, so that’s the first point of discussion: the thread that runs through that category. After that, you can discuss the works chronologically, or play them off against each other, commenting on their strengths and weaknesses as they pertain to each other, or you can subdivide them into groups. You have a lot of choices here, and it is a good idea to vary the internal structure of each of the categories a little. Doing so makes the review more pleasant to read. It also shows that you have actively thought about the works and that you understand them. However you choose to order the works within any category, it is a good idea to organise your index cards in that order before you start writing. It is also a good idea to write a linking sentence or two on each card. That way, when you get to the actual writing, it becomes a matter of flipping index cards. When you have worked your way from the top of the pile to the bottom, you’re done with that category, and ready for the next. When you are faced with actually writing about the works, however you organise the internal order of the categories, you will include quotes from some of the works. The same rule that applies to all direct quotations applies here too: Use them sparingly. Make sure direct quotations capture a key point that the author makes, otherwise rather paraphrase. Needless to say, all the works that you discuss must be fully referenced, regardless of whether you quote them directly or not. The last thing you should do for your literature review is write its introduction. You should do it last because, in it, you comment on the scope of your literature review, and on how you structured the review. Both are a lot easier to do once you have actually written it, and you’ll be sure that what you say in the introduction actually matches what comes below it. And that’s important because, as with all introductions, this is where you make promises and create expectations. When you introduce the scope of your review, you need to comment on what you have included and why, as well as on why you decided to draw the line there. In other words, you name the categories that you included, and then you point out the 97 PART 2 THE DISSERTATION sense in limiting your review to those categories. When discussing how you structured the review, you should briefly discuss the order of the categories, and the sense of putting them in that order. That way your readers will already have an idea of what they’re going into so, when they get to the actual review, the order and the logic of the whole will make sense to them. Concluding the Literature Review When you reach the bottom of the funnel all that remains is to conclude your literature review with a succinct summary of the state of the scholarship as it pertains to your thesis, and a comment about the usefulness of your work in that context. You explain that, in the light of the above, your study will do – whatever it is that is original in your work. That may be the problem that it tackles (your thesis statement), how you go about it (your method), or the sources that you use. If it is more than one of them, point that out. You will have – automatically – done what every good litera ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

School: University of Maryland

Hi, kindly find attached


Literature Review (Computer Vision and Gesture Analysis)
Student’s Name




Humans use their hands constantly in their interactions with things. Similarly, they use
gestures in their primary communication of ideas like agreeing on something or saying no to it.
Gestures are therefore a natural and intuitive form of communication and interaction. Computer
vision is a science that gives a computer or machine a better or similar capability to that of
human eyes and brains to see as well as visually sense what is around them (Acharya & Pant,
2015). Computer vision relates to the automatic extraction, understanding, and analysis of useful
information from one image or a series of images. It entails the creating an algorithmic or
theoretical basis for the effective achievement of an auto-visual understanding. The topic on
Computer Vision and Gesture analysis has been researched over the years, and thus there are
many secondary sources of information existing relating to it. This literature view will provide
the reader with a theory base, a survey of various published articles that relate to the topic, and
an overview of existing literature.
Literature Review
The review of the literature suggests that gestures are a powerful communication tool for
humans and they are so profoundly in communication such that people even continue gesturing
when on a telephone call (Samantaray et al., 2013). According to Samantaray and colleagues, the
natural use of gestures in human interaction is the critical source of inspiration to researchers to
utilize and simulate this gift in the human-computer interaction, which is highly appealing. The
primary goal of Human-Computer Interaction is to bring the overall performance and
functionality of human-machine interaction to be closely similar to a human-human interaction
(Acharya & Pant, 2015). The two authors, further point out that gesture analysis is one of the



most common computer vision applications, and the appearance based hand gesture recognition

flag Report DMCA

Top quality work from this guy! I'll be back!

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors