Figure 6 - uploaded by Mohammad Idrees Bhat
Content may be subject to copyright.
Confusion Matrices for Each Feature Type (FT 1, FT 2 and FT 3 ) for Both Divisions, respectively.

Confusion Matrices for Each Feature Type (FT 1, FT 2 and FT 3 ) for Both Divisions, respectively.

Source publication
Preprint
Full-text available
Interpretation of different writing styles, unconstrained cursiveness and relationship between different primitive parts is an essential and challenging task for recognition of handwritten characters. As feature representation is inadequate, appropriate interpretation/description of handwritten characters seems to be a challenging task. Although ex...

Context in source publication

Context 1
... 1 gives the class wise performance in terms of F-measure (for both the ratios belonging to all the feature types) and also presents validated meta-values for the RBF-kernel. Figure 6 shows confusion matrices obtained for optimised parameters of the classifier (for each feature type: FT 1 , FT 2 and FT 3 ). The performance of any recognition method is assessed in terms of precision, recall, and F-measure described as follows: ...

Similar publications

Article
Full-text available
The research with the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm has accumulated substantial evidence for the reliable cross-cultural false memory effect. However, only a limited set of languages has had the benefit of receiving their own version of the DRM paradigm, let alone the corresponding normative data. In this study, we used 728 participants (...