skip to main content
10.1145/1868914.1868947acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesnordichiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Descriptive quality of experience for mobile 3D video

Published: 16 October 2010 Publication History

Abstract

Perceptual quality evaluation experiments are used to assess the excellence of multimedia quality. However, these studies disregard qualitative experiential descriptions, interpretations, and impressions of quality. The goal of this paper is to identify general descriptive characteristics of experienced quality of 3D video on mobile devices. We conducted five studies in which descriptive data was collected after the psychoperceptual quality evaluation experiment. Qualitative semi-structured interviews and written attribute description tasks were conducted with over 90 naïve participants. The experiments contained an extensive and heterogeneous set of produced quality by varying content, level of depth, compression and transmission parameters, and audio and display factors for 3D. The results showed that quality of experience is constructed from four main components, 1) visual quality, 2) viewing experience, 3) content, and 4) quality of other modalities and their interactions.

References

[1]
Bech, S., Hamberg, R., Nijenhuis, M., Teunissen, C., de Jong, H., Houben, P., and Pramanik, S. The RaPID Perceptual Image Description method (RaPID). Proc. SPIE, Vol. 2657 (1996), 317--328.
[2]
Boev, A., Hollosi, D., Gotchev, A., and Egiazarian, K. Classification and simulation of stereoscopic artifacts in mobile 3DTV content. Proc. SPIE, Vol. 7237, No. 1, (2009).
[3]
Engeldrum, P. G. Psychometric Scaling. A Toolkit for Imaging systems development. Winchester: Imcotek Press, 2000.
[4]
Fehn, C. and Pastoor, R. S. Interactive 3-DTV concepts and key technologies. Proc. IEEE, vol. 94, no. 3, 2006, 524--538.
[5]
Freeman, J. and Avons, S. E. Focus group exploration of presence through advanced broadcast services. Proc. SPIE, Vol. 3959 (2000), 530--539.
[6]
Gibson, J. J. The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Lawrence Eribaum, 1979.
[7]
Gotchev, A., Smolic, A., Jumisko-Pyykkö, S., Strohmeier, D., Akar, G. B., Merkle, P., and Daskalov, N. Mobile 3D television: Development of core technological elements and user-centered evaluation methods toward an optimized system. Proc. SPIE, Vol. 7256, No. 1, (2009).
[8]
Grill-Spector, K., and Malach, R. The human visual cortex. Ann. Review Neuroscience, Vol. 27 (2004), 649--677.
[9]
Gulliver, S. R., and Ghinea, G. Defining user perception of distributed multimedia quality. ACM Trans. Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications, 2(4), 2006, 241--257.
[10]
Häkkinen, J., Kawai, T., Takatalo, J., Leisti, T., Radun, J., Hirsaho, A., and Nyman, G. Measuring stereoscopic image quality experience with Interpretation Based Quality methodology. Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6808 (2008).
[11]
Ijsselsteijn, W., De Ridder, H., Freeman, J., and Avons, S. E. Presence: Concept, determinants and measurement. Int. Symp. on Electronic Imaging Science and Applications: Human Vision and Electronic Imaging V, vol. 3959, B. E. Rogowits and T. N. Pappas, Eds. SPIE, 2000, 520--529.
[12]
ITU Recommendation ITU-R BT.500-11. Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures, Recommendation ITU-R BT.500-11. Telecommunication Standardization Sector of ITU (2002).
[13]
ITU Recommendation ITU-T P.910. Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications, Recommendation ITU-T P.910. Telecommunication Standardization Sector of ITU (1999).
[14]
Jumisko-Pyykkö S (2008) I would like to see the subtitles and the face or at least hear the voice: effects of picture ratio and audio-video bitrate ratio on perception of quality in mobile television. Multimed Tools Appl 36(1--2):167--184, 2008
[15]
Jumisko-Pyykkö, S. and Utriainen, T. D4.4 v2.0 Results of the user-centred quality evaluation experiments. MOBILE3DTV technical report, 2009. http://sp.cs.tut.fi/mobile3dtv/results/tech/D4.4_Mobile3DTV_v2.0.pdf
[16]
Jumisko-Pyykkö, S., Häkkinen, J., and Nyman, G. Experienced quality factors -- qualitative evaluation approach to audiovisual quality. Proc. IS&T/SPIE 19th Annual Symposium of Electronic Imaging 2007, 6507--21.
[17]
Jumisko-Pyykkö, S., and Utriainen, T. A Hybrid Method for Quality Evaluation in the Context of Use for Mobile (3D) Television Multimed Tools Appl (in press). DOI 10.1007/s11042-010-0573-4
[18]
Jumisko-Pyykkö, S., Kumar Malamal Vadakital, V., and Hannuksela, M. M. Acceptance threshold: Bidimensional research method for user-oriented quality evaluation studies. Int. J. Digital Multimedia Broadcasting, 2008.
[19]
Jumisko-Pyykkö, S., Weitzel, M., and Strohmeier, D. Designing for User Experience -- What to expect from mobile 3D television and video. Proc. uxTV 2008, 2008.
[20]
Lambooij, M., Ijsselsteijn, W., Fortuin, M. and Heynderickx, I. Visual discomfort and visual fatigue of stereoscopic displays: a review. J. Imaging Science and Technology, 53(3): 030201-030201-14, (2009).
[21]
Lewicki, M. S. Efficient coding of natural sounds. Nature Neuroscience, Vol. 5(4), (2002), 292--294.
[22]
Lorho, G. Perceptual evaluation of mobile multimedia loudspeakers. Proc. Audio Engineering Society 122th Convention, (2007).
[23]
Mattila, V. V. Descriptive analysis of speech quality in mobile communications: Descriptive language development and external preference mapping. Proc. 111th AES Convention, Paper Number 5455, 2001.
[24]
MOT Oxford Dictionary of English 1.0. The Oxford Dictionary of English, Oxford University Press 2005. Retrieved, 1.3.2010.
[25]
Neisser, U. Cognition and reality, principles and implications of cognitive psychology. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1976.
[26]
Radun J., Virtanen T., Olives, JL., Vaahteranoksa M., Vuori T., and Nyman, G. Audiovisual quality estimation of mobile phone video cameras with Interpretation-Based Quality approach. Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6494 (2007).
[27]
Radun, J., Leisti, T., Häkkinen, J., Ojanen, H., Olives, J.-L., Vuori, T., and Nyman, G. Content and quality: Interpretation-based estimation of image quality. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept. 4, 4 (2008), 1--15.
[28]
Shibata, T., Kurihara, S., Kawai, T., Takahashi, T., Shimizu, T., Kawada, R., Ito, A., Häkkinen, J., Takatalo, J., and Nyman, G. Evaluation of stereoscopic image quality for mobile devices using Interpretation Based Quality methodology, Proc. SPIE, Vol. 7237 (2009).
[29]
Stone, H., and Sidel, J. L. Sensory Evaluation Practices. 3rd ed. Academic Press, San Diego, 2004.
[30]
Storms, R. Auditory-visual Cross-modal perception phenomena. Doctoral dissertation, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey California, 1998.
[31]
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1998.
[32]
Strohmeier, D., Jumisko-Pyykkö, S., and Kunze, K. Open Profiling of Quality - A mixed method approach to understanding multimodal quality perception. Advances in Multimedia, vol. 2010 (in press).
[33]
Strohmeier, D., Jumisko-Pyykkö, S., and Reiter, U. Profiling experienced quality factors of audiovisual 3D perception, QoMEX (2010).
[34]
Strohmeier, D., Jumisko-Pyykkö, S., Kunze, K., Tech, G., Bugdayci, D., Bici, M. O. Results of quality attributes of coding, transmission and their combinations. Tech report (2010).http://sp.cs.tut.fi/mobile3dtv/results/tech/D4.3_Mobile3DTV_v1.0.pdf
[35]
Wu, W., Arefin, A., Rivas, R., Nahrstedt, K., Sheppard, R., and Yang, Z. Quality of experience in distributed interactive multimedia environments: toward a theoretical framework. Proc. ACM Multimedia MM '09. ACM, (2009), 481--49.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)People, Platforms, and Places: The Conditional Effects of Psychological Distances on Livestream ViewershipSocial Science Computer Review10.1177/08944393241305780Online publication date: 1-Dec-2024
  • (2019)S-MDP: Streaming with Markov Decision ProcessesIEEE Transactions on Multimedia10.1109/TMM.2019.2892304(1-1)Online publication date: 2019
  • (2018)A Glance at the Dagstuhl Manifesto ‘QoE Vadis?’2018 Tenth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX)10.1109/QoMEX.2018.8463374(1-3)Online publication date: May-2018
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
NordiCHI '10: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries
October 2010
889 pages
ISBN:9781605589343
DOI:10.1145/1868914
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

  • Reykjavik University
  • University of Iceland

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 16 October 2010

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. 3D
  2. multimedia
  3. quality of experience
  4. quality perception

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

NordiCHI '10
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 379 of 1,572 submissions, 24%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)6
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 16 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)People, Platforms, and Places: The Conditional Effects of Psychological Distances on Livestream ViewershipSocial Science Computer Review10.1177/08944393241305780Online publication date: 1-Dec-2024
  • (2019)S-MDP: Streaming with Markov Decision ProcessesIEEE Transactions on Multimedia10.1109/TMM.2019.2892304(1-1)Online publication date: 2019
  • (2018)A Glance at the Dagstuhl Manifesto ‘QoE Vadis?’2018 Tenth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX)10.1109/QoMEX.2018.8463374(1-3)Online publication date: May-2018
  • (2015)Touch the 3rd Dimension! Understanding Stereoscopic 3D Touchscreen InteractionComputer-Human Interaction. Cognitive Effects of Spatial Interaction, Learning, and Ability10.1007/978-3-319-16940-8_3(47-67)Online publication date: 14-Apr-2015
  • (2014)Design, implementation and evaluation of an autostereoscopic 3D mobile phonebookProceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia10.1145/2677972.2677987(81-88)Online publication date: 25-Nov-2014
  • (2014)Quality Assessment of Mobile VideosVisual Signal Quality Assessment10.1007/978-3-319-10368-6_4(99-127)Online publication date: 16-Oct-2014
  • (2013)User-Centered Study on Quality of Mobile Video ServicesTools for Mobile Multimedia Programming and Development10.4018/978-1-4666-4054-2.ch002(18-51)Online publication date: 2013
  • (2013)Investigating mobile stereoscopic 3D touchscreen interactionProceedings of the 25th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference: Augmentation, Application, Innovation, Collaboration10.1145/2541016.2541044(105-114)Online publication date: 25-Nov-2013
  • (2013)Viewing experience of 3DTV: An exploration of the feeling of sickness and presence in a shopping mallEntertainment Computing10.1016/j.entcom.2012.03.0014:1(71-81)Online publication date: Feb-2013
  • (2012)Exploring children's 3DTV experienceProceedings of the 10th European Conference on Interactive TV and Video10.1145/2325616.2325641(125-134)Online publication date: 4-Jul-2012
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media