Dataset Information

Data set for Tifinagh handwriting character recognition.

ABSTRACT: The Tifinagh alphabet-IRCAM is the official alphabet of the Amazigh language widely used in North Africa [1]. It includes thirty-one basic letter and two letters each composed of a base letter followed by the sign of labialization. Normalized only in 2003 (Unicode) [2], ICRAM-Tifinagh is a young character repertoire. Which needs more work on all levels. In this context we propose a data set for handwritten Tifinagh characters composed of 1376 image; 43 Image For Each character. The dataset can be used to train a Tifinagh character recognition system, or to extract the meaning characteristics of each character.

SUBMITTER: Bencharef O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4510372 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Data set for Tifinagh handwriting character recognition.

Bencharef Omar O Chihab Younes Y Mousaid Nouredine N Oujaoura Mustapha M

Data in brief 20150423

The Tifinagh alphabet-IRCAM is the official alphabet of the Amazigh language widely used in North Africa [1]. It includes thirty-one basic letter and two letters each composed of a base letter followed by the sign of labialization. Normalized only in 2003 (Unicode) [2], ICRAM-Tifinagh is a young character repertoire. Which needs more work on all levels. In this context we propose a data set for handwritten Tifinagh characters composed of 1376 image; 43 Image For Each character. The dataset can b ...[more]

PMID: 26217753

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionEarly evaluation of writing readiness is essential to predict and prevent handwriting difficulties and its negative influences on school occupations. An occupation-based measurement for kindergarten children has been previously developed: Writing Readiness Inventory Tool In Context (WRITIC). In addition, to assess fine motor coordination two tests are frequently used in children with handwriting difficulties: the modified Timed Test of In-Hand Manipulation (Timed TIHM) and the Nine-Hole Peg Test (9-HPT). However, no Dutch reference data are available.AimTo provide reference data for (1) WRITIC, (2) Timed-TIHM and (3) 9-HPT for handwriting readiness assessment in kindergarten children.MethodsThree hundred and seventy-four children from Dutch kindergartens in the age of 5 to 6.5 years (5.6±0.4 years, 190 boys/184 girls) participated in the study. Children were recruited at Dutch kindergartens. Full classes of the last year were tested, children were excluded if there was a medical diagnosis such as a visual, auditory, motor or intellectual impairment that hinder handwriting performance. Descriptive statistics and percentiles scores were calculated. The score of the WRITIC (possible score 0-48 points) and the performance time on the Timed-TIHM and 9-HPT are classified as percentile scores lower than the 15th percentile to distinguish low performance from adequate performance. The percentile scores can be used to identify children that are possibly at risk developing handwriting difficulties in first grade.ResultsWRITIC scores ranged from 23 to 48 (41±4.4), Timed-TIHM ranged from 17.9 to 64.5 seconds (31.4± 7.4 seconds) and 9-HPT ranged from 18.2 to 48.3 seconds (28.4± 5.4). A WRITIC score between 0-36, a performance time of more than 39.6 seconds on the Timed-TIHM and more than 33.8 seconds on the 9-HPT were classified as low performance.ConclusionThe reference data of the WRITIC allow to assess which children are possibly at risk developing handwriting difficulties.

Project description:Background and aimsPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in health services. Paper forms are still often used to register such data. Manual double data entry (DDE) has been defined as the gold standard for transferring data to an electronic format but is laborious and costly. Automated form processing (AFP) is an alternative, but validation in a clinical context is warranted. The study objective was to examine and validate a local hospital AFP setup.MethodsPatients over 18 years of age who were scheduled for knee or hip replacement at Stavanger University Hospital from 2014 to 2017 who answered PROMs were included in the study and contributed PROM data. All paper PROMs were scanned using the AFP techniques of optical mark recognition (OMR) and intelligent character recognition (ICR) and were processed by DDE by health secretaries using a data entry program. OMR and ICR were used to capture different types of data. The main outcome was the proportion of correctly entered numbers, defined as the same response recorded in AFP and DDE or by consulting the original paper questionnaire at the data field, item, and PROM level.ResultsA total of 448 questionnaires from 255 patients were analyzed. There was no statistically significant difference in error proportions per 10 000 data fields between OMR and DDE for data from check boxes (3.52 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.17 to 5.72 and 4.18 (95% CI 2.68-6.53), respectively P = .61). The error proportion for ICR (nine errors) was statistically significantly higher than that for DDE (two errors), that is, 3.53 (95% CI 1.87-6.57) vs 0.78 (95% CI 0.22-2.81) per 100 data fields/items/questionnaires; P = .033. OMR (0.04% errors) outperformed ICR (3.51% errors; P < .001), Fisher's exact test.ConclusionsOMR can produce an error rate that is comparable to that of DDE. In our setup, ICR is still problematic and is highly dependent on manual validation. When AFP is used, data quality should be tested and documented.

Dataset Information

Data set for Tifinagh handwriting character recognition.

Publications

Data set for Tifinagh handwriting character recognition.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets