Advertisement

Interpreting music manuscripts: A logic-based, object-oriented approach

  • W. Brent Seales
  • Arcot Rajasekar
Session IA1C — Document Processing & Character Recognition
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1024)

Abstract

This paper presents a complete framework for recognizing classes of machine-printed musical manuscripts. Our framework is designed around the decomposition of a manuscript into objects such as staves and bars which are processed with a knowledge base module that encodes rules in Prolog. Object decomposition focuses the recognition problem, and the rule base provides a powerful and flexible way to encode the rules of a particular manuscript class. Our rule-base registers notes and stems, eliminates false-positives and correctly labels notes according to their position on the staff. We present results that show 99% accuracy at detecting note-heads and 95% accuracy in finding stems.

Keywords

Musical Notation Staff Line Symbol Detection Symbol Recognition Musical Symbol 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dorothea Blostein and Henry S. Baird. A critical survey of music image analysis. In H. S. Baird, H. Bunke, and K. Yamamoto, editors, Structured Document Image Analysis. Springer, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nicholas P. Carter and Richard A. Bacon. Automatic recognition of printed music. Dept. of Physics, University of Surrey, GB., 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ichiro Fujinaga. Optical music recognition using projections. Master's thesis, Mc-Gill University, Montreal, CA, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ichiro Fujinaga, B. Alphonce, B. Pennycook, and G. Diener. Interactive optical music recognition. In Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference, pages 117–120, San Jose, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ichiro Fujinaga, Bo Alphonce, and Bruce Pennycook. Issues in the design of an optical music recognition system. In Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference, pages 113–116, Ohio State University, November 1989.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Gaasterland, J. Minker, and A. Rajasekar. Deductive Database Systems and Knowledge Base System. In Proceedings of VIA 90, Barcelona, Spain, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G.Cook. Teaching Percussion. Schirmer Books, Collier Macmillan Publishers, New York, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gonzales and Woods. Digital Image Processing. Addison-Wesley, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bharath R. Modayur, Visvanathan Ramesh, Robert M. Haralick, and Linda G. Shapiro. Muser — a prototype musical score recognition system using mathematical morphology. Intelligent Systems Laboratory, EE Dept, FT-10, University of Washington, Seattle WA 98195, June 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. Moko-Oka. Challenge For Knowledge Information Processing Systems (Preliminary Report on Fifth Generation Computer Systems). In Proc. International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, pages 1–85, 1981.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martin Roth. OMR — optical music recognition. diploma thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Institute for theoretical computer science, ETH Zürich, CH-8092 Zürich, Switzerland, October 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Brent Seales
    • 1
  • Arcot Rajasekar
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations