RESUMO
We report on the comparison of two systems for correcting spelling errors resulting in non-existent words (i.e. not listed in any lexicon). Both systems aim at improving edition of medical reports. Unlike traditional systems, based on word language models, both semantic and syntactic contexts are considered here. Both systems share the same string-to-string edit distance module, and the same contextual disambiguation principles. The differences between the two systems are located at the user interaction level: while the first system is using exclusively the left context, simulating the underlining of every mis-spelling at the end of every word typing, the second system uses the left as well as the right context and simulate a post-edition correction, when asked by the author. Our conclusion shows the improvements brought by the second approach.
