The use of relevance criteria during predictive judgment: An eye tracking approach

Proceedings of the ASIST Annual Meeting

Volumn 47, Issue , 2010, Pages

  Balatsoukas, Panos ^a   Ruthven, Ian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Eye Tracking; Human Relevance Judgment; Relevance Criteria; User Studies

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861423775     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15508390     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/meet.14504701145     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (27)

1. Aula, A., Majaranta, P., & Raiha, K-J. (2005). Eye-tracking reveals the personal styles for search result evaluation. In M.F. Constabile & F. Paterno (Eds.), INTERACT 2005 (pp. 1058-1061). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
2. Barry, C. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria: an exploratory study, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 45 (3) 149-159.
3. Barry, C. (1998). Document representations and clues to document relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 49 (14) 1293-1303.
4. Barry, C. and Schamber, L. (1998). Users' criteria for relevance evaluation: a cross-situational comparison. Information Processing and Management, 34 219-236.
5. Crystal, A. and Greenberg, J. (2006). Relevance criteria identified by health information users during web searches. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57 (10) 1368-2882.
6. Cutrell, E., & Guan, Z. (2007). What are you looking for? An eye-tracking study of information usage in web search. In Proceddings of the ACM HCI 2007 Conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 407-415). New York: ACM.
7. Dumais, S., Buscher, G. & Cutrell, E. (2010). Individual differences in gaze patterns for web search. IIiX 2010, August 18-21, New Brunswick, New Jersey USA.
8. Ericsson, A. and Simon, H. (1993). Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. Cambridge, Mass: MIT press.
9. Foster, A. & Ford, N. (2003). Serendipity and information seeking: an empirical study. Journal of Documentation, 59, 321-340.
10. Goldberg, J. H., Stimson, M., Lewenstein, M., Scott, N., & Wichansky, A. (2002). Eye tracking in web search tasks: design implications. In Proceedings of the Eye tracking Research and Applications Symposium (ETRA). (pp. 51-58). New York: ACM.
11. Granka, L., Joackinms, T. and Gay, G. (2004). Eye-Tracking Analysis of User Behavior in WWW Search. In: M. Sanderson, K. Jarvelin, J. Allan, P. Bruza (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, Sheffield, July 25-29, 2004. (pp. 478-479). New York: ACM.
12. Hughes, A., Wilkens, T., Wildemuth, B., and Marchionini, G. (2003). Text or pictures? An eyetracking study of how people view digital video surrogates. In E.M. Bakker et al (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference, CIVR 2003 Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA, July 24-25, 2003 (pp.271-280) Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
13. Loringo, L. (2008). Eye tracking and online search: lessons learned and challenges ahead. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(7) 1041-1052.
14. Loringo, L., Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Granka, L., & Gay, G. (2006). The influence of task and gender on search and evaluation behavior using Google. Informaiton processing and management 42, 1123-1131.
15. Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay, G. and Granka, L. (2007). In Google we trust: users' decisions on rank, position and relevance. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 12 801-823.
16. Papaeconomou, C., Zijlema, A., & Ingwersen, P. (2008). Searchers' Relevance Jugements and Criteria in Evaluating Web Pages in a Learning Style Perspective. In IIiX 2008, London, UK, 123-132.
17. Pirolli, P. (2007). Information foraging theory: adaptive interaction with information. Oxford: Oxford University.
18. Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception and visual search. The quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 62, 1457-1506.
19. th annual meeting of Human Factors and Ergonomics society, September 26-30 2005, Orlando, FL, HFES. Orlando, Florida, HFES, 2005.
20. Rieh, S.Y. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53 (2) 145-161.
21. Rodden, K., Fu, X., Aula, A. & Spiro, I. (2008). Eye-mouse coordination patterns on web search pages. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI 2005 conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2997-3002). New York: ACM press.
22. Spink, A. (2002). A user-centered approach to evaluating human interaction with web search engines: an exploratory study. Information processing and management, vol. 38, pp.401-426.
23. Tang, R. and Solomon, P. (2001) Use of relevance criteria across stages of document evaluation: on the complementarity of experimental and naturalistic studies, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52 (8) 676-685.
24. Tombros, A., Ruthven, I, and Jose, J. (2005). How users' assess web pages for information seeking. Journal of the American society for Information Science and Technology, 56(4) 327-344.
25. Tseng, Y-C., & Howes, A. (2008). The adaptation of visual search strategy to expected information gain. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI 2008 Conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1075-1084). New York: ACM press.
26. Wang, P. and Soergel, D. (1998). A cognitive model of document use during a research project. Study I. Document selection. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 49(2) 115-133.
27. Zhang, Y. and Yuelin, L. (2008). A user-centered functional metadata evaluation of moving image collections. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(8) 1331-1346.