Method for enhanced quality checking for typed text by using additional input devices
Original Publication Date: 2004-Oct-18
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2004-Oct-18
System with additional quality checking for text entered by a keyboard, using additional input devices.
Method for enhanced quality checking for typed text by using additional input Method for enhanced quality checking for typed text by using additional inputMethod for enhanced quality checking for typed text by using additional input Method for enhanced quality checking for typed text by using additional input
devices devicesdevices devices
Disclosed is a system that enables additional quality checking for text entered by a keyboard, compared to prior art systems:
Whenever communication from humans to machines is needed, input channels are used. Today, the predominant channel is the combination of keyboard and mouse, and usually, other input channels than input and mouse are ignored while users work with keyboard and mouse; and even the information available when using keyboard and mouse is not exploited completely.
Thus, currently not all information that is already available is used . In addition, further input that could be easily provided by users, at least in certain scenarios, is not used yet.
With recent advances in computing power and storage capacities it is now feasible to exploit more of the existing information and to exploit additional information users may be able and willing to provide using additional input channels . This additional information can be used for advanced detection of errors and for advanced ranking for proposed error correction.
In the most simple embodiment, the timestamp for each keystroke and the timestamp for each mouse click is saved with sufficient resolution (e.g. 1/1000 of a second) while a user provides textual input. These timestamps can be used for additional quality checks.
Example for an additional quality check exploiting the timestamps of
1. For each pair of subsequent keystrokes, the elapsed time between the keystrokes is computed;
2. As a heuristic, the following observation is used: If the elapsed time between two keystrokes is less than a certain threshold (e.g. less than 1/100 second), this pair of keystrokes is flagged as error candidate because there is evidence that the user was not fully able to control the timing for these two keystrokes. For example, when one of the keys was pressed with the left hand and the other key was pressed with the right hand at almost the same time, then there is an up to 50% risk that the chars inserted by these keystrokes were permuted; another prominent case involving two keystrokes almost at the same time is the case where the user did unintentionally touch two adjacent keys on the keyboard instead of one (which leads to an unintended extra char in the resulting text).
3. In a next step, additional checking is done for each pair of keystrokes [k1,k2] flagged in step 2 and the resulting characters [c1,c2]. For this, the following resulting candidate strings are computed:
- the original string with contains both characters c1 and c2 in the order c1-c2 - a modification where c1 and c2 occur in permuted order c2-c1 - a modificatio...