A Four-Factor User Interaction Model for Content-Based Image Retrieval

  • Haiming Liu
  • Victoria Uren
  • Dawei Song
  • Stefan Rüger
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5766)


In order to bridge the “Semantic gap”, a number of relevance feedback (RF) mechanisms have been applied to content-based image retrieval (CBIR). However current RF techniques in most existing CBIR systems still lack satisfactory user interaction although some work has been done to improve the interaction as well as the search accuracy. In this paper, we propose a four-factor user interaction model and investigate its effects on CBIR by an empirical evaluation. Whilst the model was developed for our research purposes, we believe the model could be adapted to any content-based search system.


User interaction Relevance feedback Content-based image retrieval 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Campbell, I.: Interactive evaluation of the ostensive model using a new test collection of images with multiple relevance assessments. Journal of Information Retrieval 2(1) (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dunlop, M.D.: The effect of accessing nonmatching documents on relevance feedback. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 15(2), 137–153 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grubinger, M., Clough, P., Müller, H., Deselaers, T.: The iapr tc-12 benchmark: A new evaluation resource for visual information systems. In: Proceedings of International Workshop OntoImage 2006 Language Resources for Content-Based Image Retrieval, pp. 13–23 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Müller, H., Müller, W., Marchand-Maillet, S., Pun, T.: Strategies for positive and negative relevance feedback in image retrieval. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR 2000), Barcelona, Spain, September 2000, vol. 1, pp. 1043–1046 (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pickering, M.J., Rüger, S.: Evaluation of key frame-based retrieval techniques for video. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 92(2-3), 217–235 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ruthven, I., Lalmas, M., van Rijsbergen, K.: Incorporating user search behaviour into relevance feedback. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54(6), 528–548 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saracevic, T.: Relevance reconsidered. In: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS 2), Copenhagen,Denmark, October 1996, pp. 210–218 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spink, A., Greisdorf, H., Bateman, J.: From highly relevant to not relevant: examining different regions of relevance. Information Processing Management 34(5), 599–621 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Urban, J., Jose, J.M., van Rijsbergen, K.: An adaptive technique for content-based image retrieval. Multimedia Tools and Applications 31, 1–28 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhou, X.S., Huang, T.S.: Relevance feedback in image retrieval: A comprehensive review. Multimedia Systems 8(6), 536–544 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haiming Liu
    • 1
  • Victoria Uren
    • 1
  • Dawei Song
    • 2
  • Stefan Rüger
    • 1
  1. 1.Knowledge Media InstituteThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK
  2. 2.School of ComputingThe Robert Gordon UniversityAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations