skip to main content
research-article

Watching inside the Screen: Digital Activity Monitoring for Task Recognition and Proactive Information Retrieval

Published:11 September 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We investigate to what extent it is possible to infer a user’s work tasks by digital activity monitoring and use the task models for proactive information retrieval. Ten participants volunteered for the study, in which their computer screen was monitored and related logs were recorded for 14 days. Corresponding diary entries were collected to provide ground truth to the task detection method. We report two experiments using this data. The unsupervised task detection experiment was conducted to detect tasks using unsupervised topic modeling. The results show an average task detection accuracy of more than 70% by using rich screen monitoring data. The single-trial task detection and retrieval experiment utilized unseen user inputs in order to detect related work tasks and retrieve task-relevant information on-line. We report an average task detection accuracy of 95%, and the corresponding model-based document retrieval with Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain of 98%. We discuss and provide insights regarding the types of digital tasks occurring in the data, the accuracy of task detection on different task types, and the role of using different data input such as application names, extracted keywords, and bag-of-words representations in the task detection process. We also discuss the implications of our results for ubiquitous user modeling and privacy.

References

  1. Timothy G. Armstrong, Alistair Moffat, William Webber, and Justin Zobel. 2009. Improvements That Don’T Add Up: Ad-hoc Retrieval Results Since 1998. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 601--610. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. N.J. Belkin, R. N. Oddy, and H. M. Brooks. 1982. Ask for Information Retrieval: Part I.: Background and Theory. Journal of Documentation 38, 2 (1982), 61--71.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Daniel Billsus and Michael J. Pazzani. 2000. User Modeling for Adaptive News Access. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 10, 2 (2000), 147--180. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. David M. Blei, Andrew Y. Ng, and Michael I. Jordan. 2003. Latent Dirichlet Allocation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3 (March 2003), 993--1022. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=944919.944937 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Pam Briggs, Elizabeth Churchill, Mark Levine, James Nicholson, Gary W. Pritchard, and Patrick Olivier. 2016. Everyday Surveillance. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3566--3573. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Katriina Byström and Preben Hansen. 2005. Conceptual Framework for Tasks in Information Studies. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 56, 10 (Aug. 2005), 1050--1061. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Sergey Chernov. 2008. Task Detection for Activity-based Desktop Search. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 894--894. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Eun Kyoung Choe, Nicole B. Lee, Bongshin Lee, Wanda Pratt, and Julie A. Kientz. 2014. Understanding Quantified-selfers’ Practices in Collecting and Exploring Personal Data. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1143--1152. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Elizabeth F. Churchill. 2014. Scrupulous, Scrutable, and Sumptuous: Personal Data Futures. interactions 21, 5 (Sept. 2014), 20--21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Scott Deerwester, Susan T. Dumais, George W. Furnas, Thomas K. Landauer, and Richard Harshman. 1990. Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 41, 6 (1990), 391--407.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Carsten Eickhoff, Jaime Teevan, Ryen White, and Susan Dumais. 2014. Lessons from the Journey: A Query Log Analysis of Within-session Learning. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 223--232. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Gerhard Fischer. 2001. User Modeling in Human--Computer Interaction. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 11, 1-2 (March 2001), 65--86. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Ramanathan Guha, Vineet Gupta, Vivek Raghunathan, and Ramakrishnan Srikant. 2015. User Modeling for a Personal Assistant. In Proceedings of the Eighth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 275--284. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Kirstie Hawkey and Kori M. Inkpen. 2006. Keeping Up Appearances: Understanding the Dimensions of Incidental Information Privacy. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 821--830. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Eric Horvitz, Jack Breese, David Heckerman, David Hovel, and Koos Rommelse. 1998. The LumièRe Project: Bayesian User Modeling for Inferring the Goals and Needs of Software Users. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI’98). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 256--265. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2074094.2074124 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Wen Hua, Yangqiu Song, Haixun Wang, and Xiaofang Zhou. 2013. Identifying Users’ Topical Tasks in Web Search. In Proceedings of the Sixth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 93--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Peter Ingwersen and Kalervo Järvelin. 2005. The Turn: Integration of Information Seeking and Retrieval in Context (The Information Retrieval Series). Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kalervo Järvelin and Jaana Kekäläinen. 2002. Cumulated Gain-based Evaluation of IR Techniques. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 20, 4 (Oct. 2002), 422--446. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Thorsten Joachims, Laura Granka, Bing Pan, Helene Hembrooke, and Geri Gay. 2005. Accurately Interpreting Clickthrough Data As Implicit Feedback. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 154--161. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Eunju Kim, Sumi Helal, and Diane Cook. 2010. Human Activity Recognition and Pattern Discovery. IEEE Pervasive Computing 9, 1 (Jan. 2010), 48--53. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Alfred Kobsa. 2007. Generic User Modeling Systems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 136--154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Claudio Lucchese, Salvatore Orlando, Raffaele Perego, Fabrizio Silvestri, and Gabriele Tolomei. 2011. Identifying Task-based Sessions in Search Engine Query Logs. In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 277--286. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Claudio Lucchese, Salvatore Orlando, Raffaele Perego, Fabrizio Silvestri, and Gabriele Tolomei. 2013. Discovering Tasks from Search Engine Query Logs. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 31, 3, Article 14 (Aug. 2013), 43 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. J. MacQueen. 1967. Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Volume 1: Statistics. University of California Press, Berkeley, Calif., 281--297. http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.bsmsp/1200512992Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space. CoRR abs/1301.3781 (2013). http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Feng Qiu and Junghoo Cho. 2006. Automatic Identification of User Interest for Personalized Search. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 727--736. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Andreas S. Rath, Didier Devaurs, and Stefanie N. Lindstaedt. 2009. UICO: An Ontology-based User Interaction Context Model for Automatic Task Detection on the Computer Desktop. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Context, Information and Ontologies (CIAO ‘09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 8, 10 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Xuehua Shen, Bin Tan, and ChengXiang Zhai. 2005. Context-sensitive Information Retrieval Using Implicit Feedback. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 43--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Fabrizio Silvestri. 2010. Mining Query Logs: Turning Search Usage Data into Knowledge. Found. Trends Inf. Retr. 4, 1--2 (Jan. 2010), 1--174. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Karen Sparck Jones. 1988. Document Retrieval Systems. Taylor Graham Publishing, London, UK, UK, Chapter A Statistical Interpretation of Term Specificity and Its Application in Retrieval, 132--142. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=106765.106782 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Bin Tan, Xuehua Shen, and ChengXiang Zhai. 2006. Mining Long-term Search History to Improve Search Accuracy. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 718--723. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Jaime Teevan, Susan T. Dumais, and Eric Horvitz. 2005. Personalizing Search via Automated Analysis of Interests and Activities. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 449--456. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Jaime Teevan, Susan T. Dumais, and Eric Horvitz. 2010. Potential for Personalization. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 17, 1, Article 4 (April 2010), 31 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Eran Toch, Yang Wang, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2012. Personalization and privacy: a survey of privacy risks and remedies in personalization-based systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 22, 1 (2012), 203--220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Manisha Verma and Emine Yilmaz. 2014. Entity Oriented Task Extraction from Query Logs. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1975--1978. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Chirayu Wongchokprasitti, Jaakko Peltonen, Tuukka Ruotsalo, Payel Bandyopadhyay, Giulio Jacucci, and Peter Brusilovsky. 2015. User Model in a Box: Cross-System User Model Transfer for Resolving Cold Start Problems. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 289--301.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Dingqi Yang, Daqing Zhang, Longbiao Chen, and Bingqing Qu. 2015. NationTelescope: Monitoring and visualizing large-scale collective behavior in {LBSNs}. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 55 (2015), 170 -- 180.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Zack Zhu, Ulf Blanke, Alberto Calatroni, and Gerhard Tröster. 2013. Human Activity Recognition Using Social Media Data. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (MUM ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 21, 10 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Watching inside the Screen: Digital Activity Monitoring for Task Recognition and Proactive Information Retrieval

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies
      Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies  Volume 1, Issue 3
      September 2017
      2023 pages
      EISSN:2474-9567
      DOI:10.1145/3139486
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 11 September 2017
      • Accepted: 1 July 2017
      • Revised: 1 May 2017
      • Received: 1 February 2017
      Published in imwut Volume 1, Issue 3

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader