2020
DOI: 10.1007/s10489-020-01632-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A self controlled RDP approach for feature extraction in online handwriting recognition using deep learning

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…From preprocessing to feature selection, the sports action information is extracted from the underlying data, and then the category is marked by the classifier to complete the action recognition. The process of action recognition is to obtain high-level action information through the bottom data, so as to learn the action characteristics and finally realize the process of action classification [ 28 ]. Good feature expression is critical to the final accuracy of the algorithm.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From preprocessing to feature selection, the sports action information is extracted from the underlying data, and then the category is marked by the classifier to complete the action recognition. The process of action recognition is to obtain high-level action information through the bottom data, so as to learn the action characteristics and finally realize the process of action classification [ 28 ]. Good feature expression is critical to the final accuracy of the algorithm.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The average recognition accuracy for Kannada vowel consonant combination in proposed solution is at least 10% higher compared to Prashanth et al, 16% higher compared to Kaur et al and 6% higher compared to Singh et al The false positives for Kannada vowel consonant combination in proposed solution is almost 11% lower compared to Prashanth et al (11) , 16% lower compared to Kaur et al (13) and 10% lower compared to Singh et al (19) . Compared to Vowels, the recognition accuracy in proposed solution for consonants has reduced by 1%.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…The performance is measured in terms of: recognition accuracy and false positives. The performance is compared against Modified Lenet proposed by Prashanth et al (11) , image gradient with SVM proposed by Kaur et al (13) and RDP approach proposed in Singh et al (19) . The recognition accuracy is measured for vowels and the result is given in Table 2.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations