skip to main content
10.1145/3269206.3271764acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Understanding Reading Attention Distribution during Relevance Judgement

Published: 17 October 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Reading is a complex cognitive activity in many information retrieval related scenarios, such as relevance judgement and question answering. There exists plenty of works which model these processes as a matching problem, which focuses on how to estimate the relevance score between a document and a query. However, little is known about what happened during the reading process, i.e., how users allocate their attention while reading a document during a specific information retrieval task. We believe that a better understanding of this process can help us design better weighting functions inside the document and contributes to the improvement of ranking performance. In this paper, we focus on the reading process during relevance judgement task. We designed a lab-based user study to investigate human reading patterns in assessing a document, where users' eye movements and their labeled relevant text were collected, respectively. Through a systematic analysis into the collected data, we propose a two-stage reading model which consists of a preliminary relevance judgement stage (Stage 1) and a reading with preliminary relevance stage (Stage 2). In addition, we investigate how different behavior biases affect users' reading behaviors in these two stages. Taking these biases into consideration, we further build prediction models for user's reading attention. Experiment results show that query independent features outperform query dependent features, which indicates that users allocate attentions based on many signals other than query terms in this process. Our study sheds light on the understanding of users' attention allocation during relevance judgement and provides implications for improving the design of existing ranking models.

References

[1]
Marco Allegretti, Yashar Moshfeghi, Maria Hadjigeorgieva, Frank E. Pollick, Joemon M. Jose, and Gabriella Pasi. 2015. When Relevance Judgement is Happening?: An EEG-based Study. In International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 719--722.
[2]
Ioannis Arapakis, Konstantinos Athanasakos, and Joemon M. Jose. 2010. A comparison of general vs personalised affective models for the prediction of topical relevance. In International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 371--378.
[3]
Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2015. Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translate. international conference on learning representations (2015).
[4]
Peter Bailey, Peter Bailey, Peter Bailey, Peter Bailey, and Peter Bailey. 2014. Relevance and Effort: An Analysis of Document Utility. In ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 91--100.
[5]
Klinton Bicknell and Roger Levy. 2010. A rational model of eye movement control in reading. In Proceedings of the 48th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1168--1178.
[6]
Pia Borlund. 2003. The concept of relevance in IR. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54, 10 (2003), 913--925.
[7]
Hansjürgen Bucher and Peter Schumacher. 2006. The relevance of attention for selecting news content. An eye-tracking study on attention patterns in the reception of print and online media. Communications 31, 3 (2006), 347--368.
[8]
Georg Buscher, Andreas Dengel, Ralf Biedert, and Ludger V. Elst. 2012. Attentive documents: Eye tracking as implicit feedback for information retrieval and beyond. Acm Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems 1, 2 (2012), 9.
[9]
Ye Chen, Yiqun Liu, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2017. User Satisfaction Prediction with Mouse Movement Information in Heterogeneous Search Environment. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering PP, 99 (2017), 2470--2483.
[10]
Michael J. Cole, Jacek Gwizdka, Chang Liu, Ralf Bierig, Nicholas J. Belkin, and Xiangmin Zhang. 2011. Task and user effects on reading patterns in information search. Interacting with Computers 23, 4 (2011), 346--362.
[11]
Nick Craswell, Onno Zoeter, Michael Taylor, and Bill Ramsey. 2008. An experimental comparison of click position-bias models. In The ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 87--94.
[12]
Edward Cutrell and Zhiwei Guan. 2007. What are you looking for?:an eyetracking study of information usage in web search. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2007, San Jose, California, Usa, April 28 - May. 407--416.
[13]
D Drieghe, T Desmet, and M Brysbaert. 2007. How important are linguistic factors in word skipping during reading? British Journal of Psychology 98, Pt 1 (2007), 157.
[14]
Denis Drieghe, Alexander Pollatsek, Barbara J. Juhasz, and Keith Rayner. 2010. Parafoveal processing during reading is reduced across a morphological boundary. Cognition 116, 1 (2010), 136--142.
[15]
Ralf Engbert, André Longtin, and Reinhold Kliegl. 2002. A dynamical model of saccade generation in reading based on spatially distributed lexical processing. Vision research 42, 5 (2002), 621--636.
[16]
Ralf Engbert, Antje Nuthmann, Eike M Richter, and Reinhold Kliegl. 2005. SWIFT: a dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological review 112, 4 (2005), 777.
[17]
Laura A. Granka, Thorsten Joachims, and Geri Gay. 2004. Eye-tracking analysis of user behavior in WWW search. In International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 478--479.
[18]
Jacek Gwizdka. 2014. Characterizing relevance with eye-tracking measures. In Information Interaction in Context Symposium. 58--67.
[19]
Michael Hahn and Frank Keller. 2016. Modeling Human Reading with Neural Attention. In Proceedings of the 54th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 85--95.
[20]
Tadayoshi Hara, Daichi Mochihashi2 Yoshinobu Kano, and Akiko Aizawa. 2012. Predicting word fixations in text with a CRF model for capturing general reading strategies among readers. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Eye-tracking and Natural Language Processing. 55--70.
[21]
Peter Ingwersen and Kalervo Jrvelin. 2011. The Turn: Integration of Information Seeking and Retrieval in Context. Springer Publishing Company. 821--822 pages.
[22]
B. J. Juhasz, S. J. White, S. P. Liversedge, and K Rayner. 2008. Eye movements and the use of parafoveal word length information in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance 34, 6 (2008), 1560.
[23]
Marcel Adam Just and Patricia Ann Carpenter. 1987. The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Allyn & Bacon.
[24]
Yuelin Li and Nicholas J. Belkin. 2008. A faceted approach to conceptualizing tasks in information seeking. Pergamon Press, Inc. 1822--1837 pages.
[25]
Yiqun Liu, ChaoWang, Ke Zhou, Jianyun Nie, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2014. From Skimming to Reading: A Two-stage Examination Model for Web Search. In ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 849--858.
[26]
Simon P Liversedge and John M Findlay. 2000. Saccadic eye movements and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4, 1 (2000), 6--14.
[27]
Tomasz D Loboda, Peter Brusilovsky, and Jöerg Brunstein. 2011. Inferring word relevance from eye-movements of readers. Iui 100, 1 (2011), 175--184.
[28]
Lori Lorigo, Maya Haridasan, HrÃ?nn BrynjarsdÃ?ttir, Ling Xia, Thorsten Joachims, Geri Gay, Laura Granka, Fabio Pellacini, and Bing Pan. 2008. Eye tracking and online search: Lessons learned and challenges ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 59, 7 (2008), 1041-1052.
[29]
Cheng Luo, Tetsuya Sakai, Yiqun Liu, Zhicheng Dou, Chenyan Xiong, and Jingfang Xu. 2017. Overview of the ntcir-13 we want web task. Proc. NTCIR-13 (2017).
[30]
Sandeep Mathias, Diptesh Kanojia, Kevin Patel, Samarth Agrawal, Abhijit Mishra, and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2018. Eyes are the Windows to the Soul: Predicting the Rating of Text Quality Using Gaze Behaviour. In Proceedings of the 56th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. To appear.
[31]
Scott A McDonald and Richard C Shillcock. 2003. Low-level predictive inference in reading: The influence of transitional probabilities on eye movements. Vision Research 43, 16 (2003), 1735--1751.
[32]
Yashar Moshfeghi and Joemon M. Jose. 2013. An effective implicit relevance feedback technique using affective, physiological and behavioural features. In International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 133--142.
[33]
Liang Pang, Yanyan Lan, Jiafeng Guo, Jun Xu, Jingfang Xu, and Xueqi Cheng. 2017. DeepRank: A New Deep Architecture for Relevance Ranking in Information Retrieval. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 257--266.
[34]
K Rayner. 2009. Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62, 8 (2009), 1457.
[35]
Erik D Reichle, Alexander Pollatsek, Donald L Fisher, and Keith Rayner. 1998. Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological review 105, 1 (1998), 125.
[36]
E. D. Reichle, K Rayner, and A Pollatsek. 2003. The E-Z reader model of eyemovement control in reading: comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26, 4 (2003), 445--476.
[37]
Nathaniel J. Smith and Roger Levy. 2013. The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic. Cognition 128, 3 (2013), 302--319.
[38]
Alessandro Sordoni, Philip Bachman, Adam Trischler, and Yoshua Bengio. 2016. Iterative alternating neural attention for machine reading. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.02245 (2016).
[39]
Andreas Stolcke. 2002. SRILM-an extensible language modeling toolkit. In Seventh international conference on spoken language processing.
[40]
Canhui Wang, Min Zhang, Shaoping Ma, and Liyun Ru. 2008. Automatic online news issue construction in web environment. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 457--466.
[41]
Ho Chung Wu, Robert WP Luk, Kam-Fai Wong, and KL Kwok. 2007. A retrospective study of a hybrid document-context based retrieval model. Information processing & management 43, 5 (2007), 1308--1331.
[42]
Xing Wu, Zhikang Du, and Yike Guo. 2018. A visual attention-based keyword extraction for document classification. Multimedia Tools and Applications (2018).
[43]
Kelvin Xu, Jimmy Lei Ba, Ryan Kiros, Kyunghyun Cho, Aaron C Courville, Ruslan Salakhudinov, Rich Zemel, and Yoshua Bengio. 2015. Show, Attend and Tell: Neural Image Caption Generation with Visual Attention. international conference on machine learning (2015), 2048--2057.
[44]
Peng Zhang, Dawei Song, Yuexian Hou, Jun Wang, and Peter Bruza. 2010. Automata modeling for cognitive interference in users' relevance judgment. Proc of Qi (2010), 125--133.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Modeling Attentive Interaction Behavior for Web Content Identification in Exploratory Information SeekingProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/36997508:4(1-28)Online publication date: 21-Nov-2024
  • (2024)LLMs can be Fooled into Labelling a Document as Relevant: best café near me; this paper is perfectly relevantProceedings of the 2024 Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval in the Asia Pacific Region10.1145/3673791.3698431(32-41)Online publication date: 8-Dec-2024
  • (2024)Evaluating Generative Ad Hoc Information RetrievalProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval10.1145/3626772.3657849(1916-1929)Online publication date: 10-Jul-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Understanding Reading Attention Distribution during Relevance Judgement

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CIKM '18: Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
    October 2018
    2362 pages
    ISBN:9781450360142
    DOI:10.1145/3269206
    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]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 17 October 2018

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. attention
    2. relevance judgement
    3. user behavior analysis

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    • Natural Science Foundation of China
    • National Key Basic Research Program

    Conference

    CIKM '18
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    CIKM '18 Paper Acceptance Rate 147 of 826 submissions, 18%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,861 of 8,427 submissions, 22%

    Upcoming Conference

    CIKM '25

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)34
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
    Reflects downloads up to 27 Feb 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Modeling Attentive Interaction Behavior for Web Content Identification in Exploratory Information SeekingProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/36997508:4(1-28)Online publication date: 21-Nov-2024
    • (2024)LLMs can be Fooled into Labelling a Document as Relevant: best café near me; this paper is perfectly relevantProceedings of the 2024 Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval in the Asia Pacific Region10.1145/3673791.3698431(32-41)Online publication date: 8-Dec-2024
    • (2024)Evaluating Generative Ad Hoc Information RetrievalProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval10.1145/3626772.3657849(1916-1929)Online publication date: 10-Jul-2024
    • (2024)Utilizing passage‐level relevance and kernel pooling for enhancing BERT‐based document rerankingComputational Intelligence10.1111/coin.1265640:3Online publication date: 7-Jun-2024
    • (2024)Gist, Content, Target-Oriented: A 3-Level Human-Like Framework for Video Moment RetrievalIEEE Transactions on Multimedia10.1109/TMM.2024.344367226(11044-11056)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2024
    • (2023)Design of Cloud-Based Real-Time Eye-Tracking Monitoring and Storage SystemAlgorithms10.3390/a1607035516:7(355)Online publication date: 24-Jul-2023
    • (2023)Understanding Relevance Judgments in Legal Case RetrievalACM Transactions on Information Systems10.1145/356992941:3(1-32)Online publication date: 7-Feb-2023
    • (2023)A Passage-Level Reading Behavior Model for Mobile SearchProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 202310.1145/3543507.3583343(3236-3246)Online publication date: 30-Apr-2023
    • (2022)The Predictive Effect of Eye-Movement Behavior on Reading Performance in Online Reading ContextsProceedings of the 14th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers10.1145/3572549.3572624(470-475)Online publication date: 28-Oct-2022
    • (2022)GazBy: Gaze-Based BERT Model to Incorporate Human Attention in Neural Information RetrievalProceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval10.1145/3539813.3545129(182-192)Online publication date: 23-Aug-2022
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media