Conference Paper

The effects of semantic grouping on visual search

DOI: 10.1145/1358628.1358876 Conference: Extended Abstracts Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2008, Florence, Italy, April 5-10, 2008
Source: DBLP


This paper reports on work-in-progress to better understand how users visually interact with hierarchically organized semantic information. Experimental reaction time and eye movement data are reported that give insight into strategies people employ while searching visual layouts containing words that are either grouped by category (i.e. semantically cohesive) or randomly grouped. Additionally, sometimes the category labels of the cohesive groups are displayed as part of the group. Preliminary results suggest that: (a) When groups are cohesive, people tend to search labeled and unlabeled layouts similarly. (b) People seem to trust the categorical information of labels more than non-labels. This work will be used to extend current computational models of visual search to better predict users visual interaction with interfaces.

Download full-text


Available from: Tim Halverson, Jul 03, 2015
5 Reads
  • Source
    • "Also, observations made from eye-gaze statistics in [5] suggest that humans are attentive to interesting objects in semantically rich photographs. Eye gaze measurements have been employed for modeling user attention in a number of applications including visual search for Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) [7] and open signed video analysis [3]. [9] employs low-level image features (contrast, intensity etc.) for computing a saliency map to predict human gaze. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: ABSTRACT We propose a novel framework to localize and label affec- tive objects and actions in images through a combination of text, visual and gaze-based analysis. Human gaze pro- vides useful cues to infer locations and interactions of af- fective objects. While concepts (labels) associated with an image can be determined from its caption, we demonstrate localization of these concepts upon learning from a statisti- cal affect model for world concepts. The affect model is derived from non-invasively acquired fixation patterns on labeled images, and guides localization of affective objects (faces, reptiles ) and actions (look, read ) from fixations in un- labeled images. Experimental results obtained on a database of 500 images confirm the effectiveness and promise of the proposed approach. Categories and Subject Descriptors: H.4 [Information Systems Applications]: Multimedia Application General Terms: Human Factors, Algorithms. Keywords: Automated localization and labeling, caption text-cum-eye gaze analysis, affect model for world concepts, statistical model.
    Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Multimedia 2009, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, October 19-24, 2009; 10/2009
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Current models of web navigation focus only on the influence of textual information and ignore the role of graphical information. We studied the differential role of text and graphics in identifying web page widgets classified into two kinds: textual and graphical. Four different versions of web pages were created by systematically removing textual and graphical information from each page. The task of the participants was to locate either textual or graphical widgets on the displayed web page. Results show that for any widget, the task-completion time and the number of clicks were significantly less in web pages with graphics than in those with no graphics. This demonstrates the importance of graphical information. However, textual information is also important because performance in locating graphical widgets under no-graphics conditions was better when text was present than with no text. Since, for identifying graphical widgets, text and graphics interact and complement each other, we conclude that cognitive models on web navigation should include the role of graphical information next to textual information.
    Behaviour and Information Technology 01/2012; 32(5):1-13. DOI:10.1080/0144929X.2011.650709 · 0.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Human visual search plays an important role in many human–computer interaction HCI tasks. Better models of visual search are needed not just to predict overall performance outcomes, such as whether people will be able to find the information needed to complete an HCI task, but to understand the many human processes that interact in visual search, which will in turn inform the detailed design of better user interfaces. This article describes a detailed instantiation, in the form of a computational cognitive model, of a comprehensive theory of human visual processing known as “active vision” Findlay & Gilchrist, 2003. The computational model is built using the Executive Process-Interactive Control cognitive architecture. Eye-tracking data from three experiments inform the development and validation of the model. The modeling asks—and at least partially answers—the four questions of active vision: a What can be perceived in a fixation? b When do the eyes move? c Where do the eyes move? d What information is integrated between eye movements? Answers include: a Items nearer the point of gaze are more likely to be perceived, and the visual features of objects are sometimes misidentified. b The eyes move after the fixated visual stimulus has been processed i.e., has entered working memory. c The eyes tend to go to nearby objects. d Only the coarse spatial information of what has been fixated is likely maintained between fixations. The model developed to answer these questions has both scientific and practical value in that the model gives HCI researchers and practitioners a better understanding of how people visually interact with computers, and provides a theoretical foundation for predictive analysis tools that can predict aspects of that interaction.
    Human-Computer Interaction 12/2013; 26(4):285-314. DOI:10.1080/07370024.2011.625237 · 3.14 Impact Factor
Show more