Natural Search User Interfaces for Complex Biomedical Search: An Eye Tracking Study

Liu, Ying‐Hsang; Thomas, Paul; Bacic, Marijana; Gedeon, Tom; Li, Xindi

doi:10.1080/24750158.2017.1357915

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, we will discuss a recent eye‐tracking user study , that was designed to help build natural user search interfaces to support biomedical domain experts in formulating complex queries using MeSH terms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, in an eye‐tracking study of user interactions with IR systems, Liu, Thomas, Gedeon, Bacic & Li investigated domain experts' interactions with search interfaces within the context of biomedical information searching, with a goal of improving search user interface design. Specifically, this study examined the relationship between user characteristics (domain knowledge, search experience and cognitive style) and gaze behavior, as well as user perceptions of search interfaces.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

University Metadata and Retrieval: The Death of the Library Catalog?

Liu

2017

Bull of the Asso Info Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can we yet say that benefit received is commensurate with the effort of construction? … Even if controlled retrieval language and thesauri are useful, is their uncontrolled proliferation equally useful? ([1], pp. 136-137) Controlled retrieval languages such as the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) are standard tools for information access in library collections. The debate over the usefulness of these indexing languages first emerged in the 1970s in the field of information retrieval (IR) when scholars such as Salton and Sparck Jones suggested that free text searching was as effective as controlled retrieval languages. More recently, this question has been raised for major American libraries in a report prepared for the Library of Congress, suggesting that relative to automatic subject indexing, manual indexing is not cost-effective [2].Given users' widespread comfort and familiarity with free text search in modern search engines, the question of how (if possible) to make controlled vocabularies more useful for searching is significant. In one of the most comprehensive reviews of this issue, Svenonius [3] identified important factors affecting the usefulness of controlled vocabularies, including the nature of the vocabulary, subject discipline, IR system, the skill of indexers and searchers and user requirements. These issues are complex partly because different research communities, such as those dedicated to systemoriented and user-oriented IR research and to knowledge organization, have investigated them separately from different perspectives, with little or no collaborative effort over the years. Further, the cost and value associated with the construction and maintenance of controlled vocabularies also need to be considered in practical settings. Feature University Metadata and Retrieval: The Death of the Library Catalog?by Ying-Hsang Liu C O N T E N T S EDITOR'S SUMMARYControlled vocabularies or languages are widely used in the field of information retrieval, but questions of whether they are necessary or more effective than free text searching have been unanswered. With the widespread use of free text searching in popular search engines, many in the information retrieval field have wondered how to make controlled vocabularies more useful or effective. Recent studies on this subject have revealed that while controlled vocabularies can produce more precise search results, user characteristics can potentially match those results in the right environment. These studies included a multitude of users from different backgrounds with different search environments. Some of the most important findings of these studies demonstrate that the skill of users and indexers can affect search outcomes just as much as controlled vocabularies

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%