PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 6510927

Revising documents with text editors, handwriting-recognition systems, and speech-recognition systems.

J D Gould·L Alfaro
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Explore related subjects

HandwritingHumansMan-Machine SystemsPattern Recognition, VisualSpeech PerceptionWritingJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J D Gould, L Alfaro. 1984. Revising documents with text editors, handwriting-recognition systems, and speech-recognition systems.. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088402600403

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Advances in graphonomics: studies on fine motor control, its development and disorders.

During the past 20 years graphonomic research has become a major contributor to the understanding of human movement science. Graphonomic research investigates the relationship between the planning and generation of fine motor tasks, in particular, handwriting and drawing. Scientists in this field are at the forefront of using new paradigms to investigate human movement. The 16 articles in this special issue of Human Movement Science show that the field of graphonomics makes an important contribution to the understanding of fine motor control, motor development, and movement disorders. Topics discussed include writer's cramp, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, schizophrenia, drug-induced parkinsonism, dopamine depletion, dysgraphia, motor development, developmental coordination disorder, caffeine, alertness, arousal, sleep deprivation, visual feedback transformation and suppression, eye-hand coordination, pen grip, pen pressure, movement fluency, bimanual interference, dominant versus non-dominant hand, tracing, freehand drawing, spiral drawing, reading, typewriting, and automatic segmentation.

Handwriting↗
PubMed2006

An observational study of laterality errors in a sample of clinical records.

BACKGROUND: Confusing left with right eyes can have a potentially serious adverse outcome. The most extreme occurrence is wrong site surgery but even potentially less serious errors can undermine patient confidence in their medical care. This study was designed to look into how often this could be detected in clinical notes. METHODS: An observational study conducted in an ophthalmic hospital. Hundred patients were randomly selected and their clinical notes retrieved. Notes were analysed for the number of left/right transpositions, which part of the notes they were found and whether they were corrected. RESULTS: Forty-four transposition errors were found in 32 sets on notes. The commonest error was drawing the eye on the wrong side of the page. The commonest place where errors were found was in the written outpatient notes. Nineteen of the errors had evidence of later correction. Three consent forms had the incorrect eye denoted and one patient was listed for surgery on the wrong side although this error was corrected before the operation. CONCLUSION: As far as we are aware, this study is the first to look at how often, in standard clinical notes, left/right transposition occurs. Although a direct link cannot made between their occurrence and later wrong side surgery, intuitively it would be reasonable to think it could increase the likelihood if other defences were to fail. We make a number of recommendations that might reduce this confusion and therefore more serious consequences.

Handwriting↗