Home | Browse | Search | Credits | About
Register | User Area | DL-Harvest | Help
DLIST

BRIDGING THE SEMANTIC GAP: EXPLORING DESCRIPTIVE VOCABULARY FOR IMAGE STRUCTURE

Beebe, Caroline (2007) BRIDGING THE SEMANTIC GAP: EXPLORING DESCRIPTIVE VOCABULARY FOR IMAGE STRUCTURE. In Lussky, Joan, Eds. Proceedings 18th Workshop of the American Society for Information Science and Technology Special Interest Group in Classification Research, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Full text available as:
Microsoft Word Document (.doc) - Requires Microsoft Word

Abstract

This research makes a methodological contribution to the development of faceted vocabularies and suggests a potentially significant tool for the development of more effective image retrieval systems. The research project applied an innovative experimental methodology to collect terms used by subjects in the description of images drawn from three domains. The resulting natural language vocabulary was then analyzed to identify a set of concepts that were shared across subjects. These concepts were subsequently organized as a faceted vocabulary that can be used to describe the shapes and relationships between shapes that constitute the internal spatial composition -- or internal contextuality -- of images. Because the vocabulary minimizes the terminological confusion surrounding the representation of the content and internal composition of digital images in Content-Based Image Retrieval [CBIR] systems, it can be applied to develop more effective image retrieval metrics and to enhance the selection of criteria for similarity judgments for CBIR systems. CBIR is a technology made possible by the binary nature of the computer. Although CBIR is used for the representation and retrieval of digital images, these systems make no attempt either to establish a basis for similarity judgments generated by query-by-pictorial-example searches or to address the connection between image content and its internal spatial composition. The disconnect between physical data (the binary code of the computer) and its conceptual interpretation (the intellectual code of the searcher) is known as the semantic gap. A descriptive vocabulary capable of representing the internal visual structure of images has the potential to bridge this gap by connecting physical data with its conceptual interpretation. This research project addressed three questions: Is there a shared vocabulary of terms used by subjects to represent the internal contextuality (i.e., composition) of images? Can the natural language terms be organized into concepts? And, if there is a vocabulary of concepts, is it shared across subject pairs? A natural language vocabulary was identified on the basis of term occurrence in oral descriptions provided by 21 pairs of subjects participating in a referential communication task. In this experiment, each subject pair generated oral descriptions for 14 of 182 images drawn from the domains of abstract art, satellite imagery and photo-microscopy. Analysis of the natural language vocabulary identified a set of 1,319 unique terms; these terms were collapsed into 545 concepts which were subsequently organized into a faceted vocabulary. Frequency of occurrence and domain distribution were tallied for each term and concept of the vocabulary. A shared-ness rating scale was devised to measure subject agreement on concept use. Rank ordering of concepts by shared-ness measure demonstrated which concepts were more broadly shared across subject pairs. To determine if the concepts generated by subject pairs were used consistently by each pair across the three domains the subjects were considered to be “judges” and the Spearman rank correlation was computed to indicate inter-rater reliability. Correlation analysis indicated that subject pairs tended to agree in the extent to which they used certain concepts across multiple domains and 14 concepts with the highest shared-ness sums would form the heart of a shared vocabulary. This faceted vocabulary can contribute to the development of more effective image retrieval metrics and interfaces to minimize the terminological confusion and conceptual overlap that currently exists in most CBIR systems. For both the user and the system, the concepts in the faceted vocabulary can be used to represent shapes and relationships between shapes (i.e., internal contextuality) that constitute the internal spatial composition of an image. Representation of internal contextuality would contribute to more effective image search and retrieval by facilitating the construction of more precise feature queries by the user as well as the selection of criteria for similarity judgments in CBIR applications. In addition, reliance of subjects on the use of analogy to describe images suggests that the faceted vocabulary of terms and concepts could be used to provide both the user and the CBIR system with a link to the visual shape represented by a verbal construct. Developing a visual vocabulary of shapes and relationships could be an important application of the controlled vocabulary that emerged from this study. Verbal access to concepts could serve as entry points leading into the visual vocabulary where shapes would be paired with specific low-level terms.

EPrint Type:Conference Paper
Keywords:Image access, Semantic gap, Image retrieval
Subjects:Classification
ID Code:2065
Deposited On:20 October 2007
Eprint Statistics:View statistics for this eprint
Tell A Colleague:Tell a colleague about it.

Batty, D. (1989). Thesaurus construction and maintenance: A survival kit. Database, 13-20.

Battig, W. F., & Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80(3, Part 2), 1-45.

Beebe, C., & Jacob, E. K. (1998). Graphic language documents: Structures and functions. In W. M. el-Hadi, J. Maniez & A. S. Pollitt (Eds.), Structures and relations in knowledge organization, proceedings 5th Int. ISKO Conference (Vol. 6, pp. 244-255). Lille, France: Ergon Verlag.

Belkin, N. J. (1977). The problem of 'matching' in information retrieval. Paper presented at the Second International Research Forum in Information Science, London

Belkin, N. J. (1990). The cognitive viewpoint in information science. Journal of Information Science, 16, 11-15.

Belkin, N. J., Oddy, R. N., & Brooks, H. M. (1982). ASK for information retrieval Part 1. Journal of Documentation, 38(2), 61-71.

Besser, H., & Yamashita, R. (1998). The cost of digital image distribution: The social and economic implications of the production, distribution and usage of image data: Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

Busch, J. A. (1994). How to choose among alternative technologies for physical access to art images. Computers and the History of Art, 4(2), 3-16.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum.

Datta, R., Li, J., & Wang, J. Z. (2005). Content-based image retrieval - approaches and trends of the new age. Paper presented at the MIR '05, Singapore.

Eakins, J. P., & Graham, M. E. (1999). Content-based image retrieval: A report to the JISC Technology Applications Programme. Newcastle: Institute for Image Data Research, University of Northumbria.

Fussell, S. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1989a). The effects of intended audience on message production and comprehension: Reference in a common ground framework. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 203-219.

Fussell, S. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1989b). Understanding friends and strangers: The effects of audience design on message comprehension. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 509-525.

Galantucci, B. (2005). An experimental study of the emergence of human communication systems. Cognitive Science, 29, 737-767.

Goodrum, A. A., Rorvig, M. E., Jeong, K.-T., & Suresh, C. (2001). An open source agenda for research linking text and image content features. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(11), 948-953.

Hirschheim, R., Klein, H. K., & Lyytinen, K. (1995). Information systems development and data modeling: Conceptual and philosophical foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hunt, K. P., & Hodge, M. H. (1971). Category-item Frequency and Category-name meaningfulness (m'): Taxonomic Norms for 84 Categories. Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 4(6), 97-121.

Jacob, E. K., & Shaw, D. (1998). Sociocognitive perspectives on representation. In M. E. Williams (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (Vol. 33, pp. 131-185). Medford, NJ: Information Today for the American Society for Information Science.

Kuhlthau, C. C. (1991). A process approach to library skills instruction. In Information literacy: Learning how to learn (pp. 35-40). Chicago: American Library Association.

Mostafa, J. (1994). Digital image representation and access. In M. E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (ARIST) (Vol. 29, pp. 91-135). Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science.

Pollitt, A. S. (1999). Interactive information retrieval based on faceted classification using views. Retrieved September 7, 1999, from www.hud.ac.uk/schools/cedar/dorking.htm

Rogowitz, B. E., Frese, T., Smith, J. R., Bouman, C. A., & Kalin, E. (1998, January 26-29). Perceptual image similarity experiments. Paper presented at the Human Vision and Electronic Imaging III, San Jose, CA

Santini, S., & Jain, R. (1998). Beyond query by example. Paper presented at the IEEE Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing, Los Angeles, CA.

Smeulders, A. W. M., Worring, M., Santini, S., Gupta, A., & Jain, R. (2000). Content-based image retrieval at the end of the early years. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 22(12), -1-32.

Stemler, S. E. (2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Retrieved June 15, 2006, from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=4

Stenvert, R. (1992). Bridging the gap between pixel and picture. Computers and the History of Art, 2(2), 19-24.

EPrints dLIST, an open access archive for the Information Sciences, is supported by the School of Information Resources and Library Science and Learning Technologies Center, University of Arizona. Established in 2002, dLIST has a global Advisory Board and is a part of the Information Technology & Society Research Lab. Open Archives
Contact: Admin | Donate