4.4 Article

The neglected user in music information retrieval research

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS
卷 41, 期 3, 页码 523-539

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10844-013-0247-6

关键词

User-centric music retrieval; Experimental design; Evaluation; Interpretation

资金

  1. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P22856, P25655, P24095]
  2. Spanish Government [HAR2011-27540]
  3. European Commission [287711]
  4. European Union Seventh Framework Programme through the PHENICX project [601166]
  5. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P 22856, P 24095] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P22856, P24095] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Personalization and context-awareness are highly important topics in research on Intelligent Information Systems. In the fields of Music Information Retrieval (MIR) and Music Recommendation in particular, user-centric algorithms should ideally provide music that perfectly fits each individual listener in each imaginable situation and for each of her information or entertainment needs. Even though preliminary steps towards such systems have recently been presented at the International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR) and at similar venues, this vision is still far away from becoming a reality. In this article, we investigate and discuss literature on the topic of user-centric music retrieval and reflect on why the breakthrough in this field has not been achieved yet. Given the different expertises of the authors, we shed light on why this topic is a particularly challenging one, taking computer science and psychology points of view. Whereas the computer science aspect centers on the problems of user modeling, machine learning, and evaluation, the psychological discussion is mainly concerned with proper experimental design and interpretation of the results of an experiment. We further present our ideas on aspects crucial to consider when elaborating user-aware music retrieval systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据