4 February 2013 Evaluation of differences in quality of experience features for test stimuli of good-only and bad-only overall audiovisual quality
Author Affiliations +
Abstract
Assessing audiovisual Quality of Experience (QoE) is a key element to ensure quality acceptance of today's multimedia products. The use of descriptive evaluation methods allows evaluating QoE preferences and the underlying QoE features jointly. From our previous evaluations on QoE for mobile 3D video we found that mainly one dimension, video quality, dominates the descriptive models. Large variations of the visual video quality in the tests may be the reason for these findings. A new study was conducted to investigate whether test sets of low QoE are described differently than those of high audiovisual QoE. Reanalysis of previous data sets seems to confirm this hypothesis. Our new study consists of a pre-test and a main test, using the Descriptive Sorted Napping method. Data sets of good-only and bad-only video quality were evaluated separately. The results show that the perception of bad QoE is mainly determined one-dimensionally by visual artifacts, whereas the perception of good quality shows multiple dimensions. Here, mainly semantic-related features of the content and affective descriptors are used by the naïve test participants. The results show that, with increasing QoE of audiovisual systems, content semantics and users' a_ective involvement will become important for assessing QoE differences.
© (2013) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
Dominik Strohmeier, Dominik Strohmeier, Kristina Kunze, Kristina Kunze, Klemens Göbel, Klemens Göbel, Judith Liebetrau, Judith Liebetrau, } "Evaluation of differences in quality of experience features for test stimuli of good-only and bad-only overall audiovisual quality", Proc. SPIE 8653, Image Quality and System Performance X, 86530B (4 February 2013); doi: 10.1117/12.2001363; https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2001363
PROCEEDINGS
10 PAGES


SHARE
Back to Top