바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.49 No.4
Citation Share

An Identification of the Image Retrieval Domain from the Perspective of Library and Information Science with Author Co-citation and Author Bibliographic Coupling Analyses

An Identification of the Image Retrieval Domain from the Perspective of Library and Information Science with Author Co-citation and Author Bibliographic Coupling Analyses

한국문헌정보학회지 / Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, (P)1225-598X; (E)2982-6292
2015, v.49 no.4, pp.99-124
https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2015.49.4.099
윤정원 (University of South Florida)
정은경 (이화여자대학교)
변지혜 (이화여자대학교)
윤정원, 정은경, & 변지혜. (2015). An Identification of the Image Retrieval Domain from the Perspective of Library and Information Science with Author Co-citation and Author Bibliographic Coupling Analyses. 한국문헌정보학회지, 49(4), 99-124, https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2015.49.4.099
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수
PDF 다운로드

Abstract

As the improvement of digital technologies increases the use of images from various fields, the domain of image retrieval has evolved and become a growing topic of research in the Library and Information Science field. The purpose of this study is to identify the knowledge structure of the image retrieval domain by using the author co-citation analysis and author bibliographic coupling as analytical tools in order to understand the domain’s past and present. The data set for this study is 245 articles with 8,031 cited articles in the field of image retrieval from 1998 to 2013, from the Web of Science citation database. According to the results of author co-citation analysis for the past of the image retrieval domain, our findings demonstrate that the intellectual structure of image retrieval in the LIS field consists of predominantly user-oriented approaches, but also includes some areas influenced by the CBIR area. More specifically, the user-oriented approach contains six specific areas which include image needs, information seeking, image needs and search behavior, image indexing and access, indexing of image collection, and web image search. On the other hand, for CBIR approaches, it contains feature-based image indexing, shape-based indexing, and IR & CBIR. The recent trends of image retrieval based on the results from author bibliographic coupling analysis show that the domain is expanding to emerging areas of medical images, multimedia, ontology- and tag-based indexing which thus reflects a new paradigm of information environment.

keywords
Image Retrieval, Domain Analysis, Knowledge Structure, Author Co-citation Analysis, Author Bibliographic Coupling

참고문헌

1.

Armitage, L. H., and Enser, P. G. 1997. Analysis of User Need in Image Archives. Journal of Information Science, 23(4), 287-299.

2.

Bassecoulard, E., Lelu, A., and Zitt, M. 2007. Mapping Nanosciences by Citation Flows:A Preliminary Analysis. Scientometrics, 70, 859-880.

3.

Börner, K. 2000. Extracting and Visualizing Semantic Structures in Retrieval Results for Browsing. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Digital Libraries, 234-235.

4.

Burford, B., Briggs, P., and Eakins, J. P. 2003. A Taxonomy of the Image: on the Classification of Content for Image Retrieval. Visual Communication, 2(2), 123-161.

5.

Choi, Y., and Rasmussen, E. M. 2002. Users' Relevance Criteria in Image Retrieval in American History. Information Processing & Management, 38(5), 695-726.

6.

Choi, Y., and Rasmussen, E. M. 2003. Searching for Images: The Analysis of Users' Queries for Image Retrieval in American History. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(6), 498-511.

7.

Choi, Y. 2010. Effects of Contextual Factors on Image Searching on the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(10), 2011-2028.

8.

Chu, H. 2001. Research in Image Indexing and Retrieval as Reflected in the Literature.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(12), 1011-1018.

9.

Chung, E. K., and Yoon, J. 2009. Categorical and Specificity Differences between User-Supplied Tags and Search Query Terms for Images. An Analysis of Flickr Tags and Web Image Search Queries. Information Research, 14(3), 1-22.

10.

Chung, E., and Yoon, J. 2010. An Exploratory Analysis on Unsuccessful Image Searches.In Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47(1), 1-2.

11.

Chung, E., and Yoon, J. 2011. Image Needs in the Context of Image Use: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Information Science, 37(2), 163-177.

12.

Conniss, L. R., Ashford, A. J., and Graham, M. E. 2000. Information Seeking Behaviour in Image Retrieval: VISOR I Final Report. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: University of Northumbria.

13.

Cunningham, S. J., and Masoodian, M. 2006. Looking for a Picture: An Analysis of Everyday Image Information Searching. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference, 198-199.

14.

Cunningham, S. J., Bainbridge, D., and Masoodian, M. 2004. How People Describe Their Image Information Needs: A Grounded Theory Analysis of Visual Arts Queries. In Proceedings of the 2004 Joint ACM/IEEE Conference, 47-48.

15.

Datta, R. et al. 2008. Image Retrieval: Ideas, Influences, and Trends of the New Age. ACM Computing Surveys, 40(2), 1-60.

16.

Eakins, J. P. 1996. Automatic Image Content Retrieval: Are We Getting Anywhere? ELVIRAPROCEEDINGS, 121-134.

17.

Enser, P. G. B., and McGregor, C. G. 1992. Analysis of Visual Information Retrieval Queries. London: British Library.

18.

Enser, P. G. B., Sandom, C. J., and Lewis, P. H. 2005. Automatic Annotation of Images from the Practitioner Perspective. Image and Video Retrieval, 3568, 497-506.

19.

Enser, P. G. B. 2008a. Visual Image Retrieval. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 42(1), 1-42.

20.

Enser, P. G. B. 2008b. The Evolution of Visual Information Retrieval. Journal of Information Science, 34(4), 531-546.

21.

Frost, C. O. et al. 2000. Browse and Search Patterns in a Digital Image Database. Information retrieval, 1(4), 287-313.

22.

Fukumoto, T. 2006. An Analysis of Image Retrieval Behavior for Metadata Type Image Database. Information processing & management, 42(3), 723-728.

23.

Glanzel, W., and Czerwon, H. J. 1996. A New Methodological Approach to Bibliographic Coupling and Its Application to the National, Regional, and Institutional Level. Scientometrics, 37, 195-221.

24.

Goodrum, A., and Spink, A. 2001. Image Searching on the Excite Web Search Engine.Information Processing & Management, 37(2), 295-311.

25.

Goodrum, A. A. 2000. Image Information Retrieval: An Overview of Current Research.Informing Science, 3(2), 63-66.

26.

Goodrum, A. A., Bejune, M. M., and Siochi, A. C. 2003. A State Transition Analysis of Image Search Patterns on the Web. Image and Video Retrieval, 2728, 281-290.

27.

Greisdorf, H., and O’Connor, B. 2002. Modelling What Users See When They Look at Images: A Cognitive Viewpoint. Journal of Documentation, 58(1), 6-29.

28.

Hastings, S. K. 1995. Query Categories in a Study of Intellectual Access to Digitized Art Images. In Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting, 32, 3-8.

29.

Hollink, L. et al. 2004. Classification of User Image Descriptions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61(5), 601-626.

30.

Idris, F., and Panchanathan, S. 1997. Review of Image and Video Indexing Techniques.Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, 8(2), 146-166.

31.

Jaimes, A., and Chang, S. F. 1999. Conceptual Framework for Indexing Visual Information at Multiple Levels. IS&T/SPIE Internet Imaging, 3964, 2-15.

32.

Jörgensen, C., and Jörgensen, P. 2005. Image Querying by Image Professionals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(12), 1346-1359.

33.

Jorgensen, C. 1995. Classifying Images: Criteria for Grouping as Revealed in a Sorting Task. Advances in Classification Research Online, 6(1), 65-78.

34.

Jörgensen, C. 1999. Access to Pictorial Material: A Review of Current Research and Future Prospects. Computers and the Humanities, 33(4), 293-318.

35.

Jörgensen, C. 2003. Image Retrieval: Theory and Research. Lanham, USA: Scarecrow Press.

36.

Jörgensen, C. 2007. Image Access, the Semantic Gap, and Social Tagging as a Paradigm Shift. Advances in Classification Research Online, 18(1).

37.

Kherfi, M. L., and Ziou, D. 2004. Image Retrieval Based on Feature Weighting and Relevance Feedback. 2004 International Conference on Image Processing, 689-692.

38.

Kuusi, O., and Meyer, M. 2007. Anticipating Technological Breakthroughs: Using Bibliographic Coupling to Explore the Nanotubes Paradigm. Scientometrics, 70, 759-777.

39.

Laine-Hernandez, M., and Westman, S. 2006. Image Semantics in the Description and Categorization of Journalistic Photographs. In Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 43(1), 1-25.

40.

Layne, S. S. 1994. Some Issues in the Indexing of Images. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(8), 583-588.

41.

Lee, J. Y. 2006. A Novel Clustering Method for Examining and Analyzing the Intellectual Structure of a Scholarly Field. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 23(4), 215-231.

42.

Lee, J. Y. 2008. Bibliographic Author Coupling Analysis: A New Methodological Approach for Identifying Research Trends. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 25(1), 173-190.

43.

Lew, M. S. et al. 2006. Content-Based Multimedia Information Retrieval: State of the Art and Challenges. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications, 2(1), 1-19.

44.

Liu, Y. et al. 2007. A Survey of Content-Based Image Retrieval with High-Level Semantics.Pattern Recognition, 40(1), 262-282.

45.

Markkula, M., and Sormunen, E. 2000. End-User Searching Challenges Indexing Practices in the Digital Newspaper Photo Archive. Information Retrieval, 1(4), 259-285.

46.

De Marsicoi, M., Cinque, L., and Levialdi, S. 1997. Indexing Pictorial Documents by Their Content: A Survey of Current Techniques. Image and Vision Computing, 15(2), 119-141.

47.

Matusiak, K. K. 2006. Towards User-Centered Indexing in Digital Image Collections.OCLC Systems & Services, 22(4), 283-298.

48.

McCay-Peet, L., and Toms, E. 2009. Image Use within the Work Task Model: Images as Information and Illustration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(12), 2416-2429.

49.

O'Connor, B. C., O'Connor, M. K., and Abbas, J. M. 1999. User Reactions as Access Mechanism:An Exploration Based on Captions for Images. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(8), 681-697.

50.

Ornager, S. 1997. Image Retrieval: Theoretical Analysis and Empirical User Studies on Accessing Information in Images. In Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting, 34, 202-211.

51.

Pisciotta, H. A. et al. 2005. Penn State's Visual Image User Study. Libraries and the Academy, 5(1), 33-58.

52.

Pu, H. T. 2005. A Comparative Analysis of Web Image and Textual Queries. Online Information Review, 29(5), 457-467.

53.

Pu, H. T. 2008. An Analysis of Failed Queries for Web Image Retrieval. Journal of Information Science, 34(3), 275-289.

54.

Rasmussen, E. M. 1997. Indexing Images. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 32, 169-196.

55.

Rogowitz, B. E. et al. 1998. Perceptual Image Similarity Experiments. Human Vision and Electronic Imaging III, 3299(1), 576-590.

56.

Rorissa, A., and Hastings, S. K. 2004. Free Sorting of Images: Attributes Used for Categorization.In Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 360-366.

57.

Rorissa, A. 2008. User-Generated Descriptions of Individual Images Versus Labels of Groups of Images: A Comparison Using Basic Level Theory. Information Processing & Management, 44(5), 1741-1753.

58.

Rui, Y., Huang, T. S., and Chang, S. F. 1999. Image Retrieval: Current Techniques, Promising Directions, and Open Issues. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, 10(1), 39-62.

59.

Shatford, S. 1986. Analyzing the Subject of a Picture: A Theoretical Approach. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 6(3), 39-62.

60.

Smeulders, A. W. et al. 2000. Content-Based Image Retrieval at the End of the Early Years.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 22(12), 1349-1380.

61.

Stvilia, B., Jörgensen, C., and Wu, S. 2012. Establishing the Value of Socially-Created Metadata to Image Indexing. Library & Information Science Research, 34(2), 99-109.

62.

Veltkamp, R. C., and Tanase, M. 2002. Content-Based Image Retrieval Systems: A survey.Department of Computing Science, Utrecht University, 1-62.

63.

Westman, S., and Oittinen, P. 2006. Image Retrieval by End-Users and Intermediaries in a Journalistic Work Context. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Information interaction in context, 102-110.

64.

Westman, S. 2009. Image Users’ Needs and Searching Behaviour. Information Retrieval:Searching in the 21st Century, 63-83.

65.

Westman, S., Lustila, A., and Oittinen, P. 2008. Search Strategies in Multimodal Image Retrieval. In Proceedings of the second international symposium on Information interaction in context, 13-20.

66.

White, H. D., and Griffith, B. C. 1981. Author Co-Citation: A Literature Measure of Intellectual Structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327-355.

67.

Yoon, J., and Chung, E. 2011. Understanding Image Needs in Daily Life by Analyzing Questions in a Social Q&A Site. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(11), 2201-2213.

68.

Yoon, J. 2009. Towards a User-Oriented Thesaurus for Non-Domain-Specific Image Collections.Information Processing & Management, 45(4), 452-468.

69.

Zhao, D., and Strotmann, A. 2008. Evolution of Research Activities and Intellectual Influences in Information Science 1996-2005: Introducing Author Bibliographic Coupling Analysis.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2070-2086.

한국문헌정보학회지

논문 투고 OA 정책