Method and process for performing category-based analysis, evaluation, and prescriptive practice creation upon stenographically written and voice-written text files

• US 8,321,197 B2
• Filed: 10/17/2007
• Issued: 11/27/2012
• Est. Priority Date: 10/18/2006
• Status: Expired due to Fees

• Current Assignee: Gary Kenneth Pollreis, Gordon James Gaudet, Sandra Joyce Natale, Teresa Ruth Gaudet
• Original Assignee: Gary Kenneth Pollreis, Gordon James Gaudet, Sandra Joyce Natale, Teresa Ruth Gaudet
• Inventors: Gaudet, Teresa Ruth, Gaudet, Gordon James, Natale, Sandra Joyce, Pollreis, Gary Kenneth
• Primary Examiner(s): Han, Qi
• Application Number:
  US11/975,155
• Publication Number:
  US 20090012789A1
• Time in Patent Office: 1,868 Days
• Field of Search: 704/9, 704/270, 704/251, 704/7, 704/8, 704/10, 704/1, 704/3, 434/158, 434/185
• US Class Current: 704/9
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 40/232 Orthographic correction, e.g. spell checking or vowelisation
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 40/274 Converting codes to words; Guess-ahead of partial word inputs
• CPC Class Codes: G10L 15/26 Speech to text systems G10L15/08 takes precedence

Abstract

System and method for electronically identifying and analyzing the type and frequency of errors and mismatches in a stenographically or voice written text against a stored master file and dynamically creating personalized user feedback, drills, and practice based on identified errors and mismatches from within the context of the stored master file. The system provides the user with a plurality of methods to enter a text file for error identification and analysis including both realtime and non-realtime input. The text input is then compared to a stored master file through a word-by-word iterative process which produces a comparison of writing input and stored master wherein errors and mismatches are identified and grouped in a plurality of pre-defined and user-selected categories, each of which is color-coded to facilitate pattern recognition of type and frequency of errors and mismatches in the submitted writing.

Claims

1. An automated computer based method of evaluating a stenographically written or voice-written writing performance file according to pre-determined and user defined categories through a computerized system of analysis operated by a computer program, comprising:

submitting and deconstructing, by a computer, the writing performance file into a series of manageable word arrays; and

comparing, by a computer, the words in the series of manageable word arrays to corresponding words in a master data file on the basis of a repeating set of a plurality of evaluation criteria processed and applied through a pre-determined sequence which a writer can invoke for a computerized comprehensive analysis, comprising identifying errors, categorizing the errors by type and frequency, and dynamically generating and displaying sets of prescriptive practice drills based on the identified errors,

wherein said drills are grouped by category and built from a corrected version of each identified error and embedded in content in elements from the master file immediately preceding and succeeding the corrected error and wherein the writer can use the corrected version of each identified error to quickly identify areas of performance deficiency and execute corrective practice to overcome said deficiencies.

2. The automated computer based method as recited in claim 1 wherein the analysis is based upon and includes a series of categories upon which the resultant evaluation will be performed including but not necessarily limited to dropped words, extra words, wrong words, spelling errors, number format mismatches, plural/singular mismatches, word boundary errors, phrase/contraction transpositions, punctuation and case mismatches, untranslated or partially translated steno outlines, whereby errors identified can be organized so as to display frequency by category allowing writers to identify concentrations of similar types of errors for more efficient practice focus.

3. The automated computer based method as recited in claim 2 further comprising a graphical user interface allowing the user to define additional categories to be included in the category-based analysis and associated prescripted practice creation provided by the category-based evaluation process.

4. The automated computer based method as recited in claim 2 wherein a pre-determined sequence of color-codes are incorporated into the method of displaying the resultant category-based error analysis and evaluation whereby error relationships and frequency are easily discernible by the writer who is then able to make appropriate decisions allocating available practice time to the most critical areas for his or her personal performance characteristics.

5. The automated computer based method as recited in claim 4 wherein a tabular display compares each word or character element of the writing sample submitted to each corresponding word or character element of the master file with resultant non-matches noted and highlighted in the color-codes corresponding to the category based analysis.

6. The automated computer based method as recited in claim 5 wherein a graphical user interface is included to allow the user to move from each identified error to a corresponding error line of the tabular display.

7. The automated computer based method as recited in claim 4 wherein the evaluation analysis with errors identified and color coded according to the category based analysis performed may be displayed as a single continuous results file whereby users may easily identify patterns of categories of errors as they occur throughout the writing.

8. The automated computer based method as recited in claim 7 wherein a graphical user interface is included to display in conjunction with and juxtaposition to each color-coded error identified a correction of said error upon user command.

9. The automated computer based method as recited in claim 2 wherein a tabular display is included in the category-based analysis display to provide the user with specific error totals by category for each writing whereby a user may easily identify and prioritize categories of errors by type and frequency of occurrence.

10. The automated computer based method as recited in claim 1 further comprising a graphical user interface allowing the evaluation of directly input (realtime) files or upload of saved files previously written for evaluation whereby writers may achieve a maximum level of evaluation and analysis of a wide variety of types of practice.

11. The automated computer based method of claim 1 wherein a graphical user interface is included allowing the writer to input data on the conditions under which the writing was created.

12. An automated computer-based method for the dynamic creation of personalized drill practice through the operation of a computer algorithm to identify errors in a stenographic writing according to pre-defined and user-defined categories of errors comprising:

(a) for each error identified invoking, by a computer, the extraction of the error and its surrounding context from text based files, correcting the error by reference to a master file document, and then embedding the correction into an extraction of content, from the original master file surrounding the word element to which the error was compared, and

(b) for each result generating, by a computer, an output presenting the combination of corrected error and context for immediate prescriptive practice, and

(c) presenting, by a computer, each prescriptive practice element aggregated with other prescriptive practice elements developed from errors assigned to the same category of analysis, and

(d) enabling each category of prescriptive practice sets to be accessible distinctly from all other categories enabling a user to execute at will personalized prescriptive practice organized by type and frequency of error.

13. The automated computer based method recited in claim 12 and further including a graphical user interface allowing the writer to select the extent of contextual surround to be used to build the prescriptive practice dynamically created for each error and to adjust said extent of contextual surround according to the category of error selected for practice.

14. The automated computer based method recited in claim 12 and further including a graphical user interface allowing the writer to download and save all prescriptive practice created by the evaluation and analysis process for further, offline practice.

15. The automated computer based method of claim 12 wherein a graphical user interface is included allowing the writer to input data on the conditions under which the writing was created and wherein logic is included in the program allowing the data collected by the graphical user interface to be associated with its corresponding evaluation attempt and displayed upon query of the database containing evaluation and analysis results.

16. The automated computer based method of claim 12 wherein logic is included to allow the recreation of events and sequences of events performed by users and the association of said events with corresponding evaluation results and prescriptive practice activities.

17. An automated, computer based method comprising:

storing and organizing, by a computer, evaluation results data from stenographically written data files translated through a steno character translation software program; and

creating storing, by a computer, prescriptive practice therefrom by the process of analysis and evaluation of the stenographically written data files translated through the steno character translation software program according to a pre-determined and user-definable plurality of categories in a searchable computer database in such manner that said evaluation results data from stenographically written files translated through the steno character translation software program and created prescriptive practice may be recreated and displayed by the user at any time after the initial stenographically written text file evaluation process is completed.