Experienced quality factors - Qualitative evaluation approach to audiovisual quality

Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering

Volumn 6507, Issue , 2007, Pages

  Jumisko Pyykkö, Satu ^a   Häkkinen, Jukka ^b   Nyman, Göte ^b  

^a TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Audio; Audiovisual quality; Qualitative methods; Subjective evaluation; Video

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN NETWORKS; CONSTRAINT THEORY; MOBILE DEVICES; MULTIMEDIA SERVICES;

AUDIOVISUAL QUALITY; METHODOLOGICAL TRIANGULATIONS; QUALITATIVE METHODS; SUBJECTIVE EVALUATIONS;

IMAGE QUALITY;

EID: 35148825393     PISSN: 0277786X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1117/12.699797     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (42)

1. Apteker, R.T., Fisher, J.A., Kisimov,V.S., Neishlos, H."Video Acceptability and Frame rate,"IEEE Multimedia, 3(3):32-40, 1995.
2. Beerends, J.G. & de Caluwe, F.E, "The influence of video quality on perceived audio quality and vice versa," Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 47 (5), 355-362(1999).
3. B-Course - Bayesian Data Analysis and Modeling: http://b-course.hiit.fi/
4. Clark-Carter, D. Quantitative Psychological research. New York Psychology: Press, 2002.
5. Coen, M., "Multimodal Integration - A Biological View," In Proceedings of IJCAI'01, Seattla, WA, 2001.
6. Coolican, H., 2004. Research methods and statistics in psychology ,4th ed, London: J. W. Arrowsmith Ltd, 2004.
7. Evans, F.F., "Auditory processing of complex sounds: An overview," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, Volume 336, Issue 1278, pp. 295-306 (1992).
8. Finnpanel. Television audience measurements, http://www. finnpanel.fi., visited 05/2004
9. Gibson, J.J., The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Lawrence Eribaum, 1979.
10. Ghinea, G. & Thomas, J. P. "QoS impact user perception and understanding of multimedia video clips, " Proc. of ACM Multimedia '98". Bristol, pp. 49-54 (1998).
11. Grill-Spector, K. & Malach, R.,"The human visual cortex," Annual Review of Neuroscience, Vol 27, 649-677(2004).
12. Gulliver, S.R., Serif, T. and Ghinea, G. "Pervasive and Standalone Computing: the Perceptual Effects of VariableMultimedia Quality," International Journal of Human Computer Studies. Vol 60 No. 5-6. p.640-665(2004).
13. Hands, D. S., "A Basic Multimedia Quality Model," IEEE Transactions on Multimedia.Vol.6,No.6, 806-816(2004).
14. Hollier, M. P., Rimell, A. N., Hands, D. S. and Voelcker, R. M. "Multi-modal perception," BT Technology Journal Volume 17, Number 1, 35-46 (1999).
15. st ed. p.386. Switzerland. 1990.
16. ITU-R BT.500-11 Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures, International Telecommunications Union - Radiocommunication sector, 2002.
17. ITU-T P.911 Recommendation P.911, Subjective audiovisual quality assessment methods for multimedia application, International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication sector, 1998.
18. ITU-T P.920 Interactive test methods for audiovisual communications, International Telecommunications Union - Telecommunication sector, 2000.
19. Jumisko-Pyykkö, S., Vinod Kumar M. V., Liinasuo, M, Hannuksela, M. "Acceptance of Audiovisual Quality in Erroneous Television Sequences over a DVB-H Channel, " Proc. of Second International Workshop in Video Processing and Quality Metrics for Consumer Electronics, Scottsdale, USA, January 2006.
20. Jumisko-Pyykkö, S., Vinod Kumar, M. V., Korhonen, J., "Unacceptability of Instantaneous Errors in Mobile Television: From Annoying Audio to Video," Proc. 8th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI 2006) in Espoo, Finland, September pp. 1-8 (2006).
21. Jumisko-Pyykkö, S. and Häkkinen, J., "Evaluation of Subjective Video Quality on Mobile Devices". Proc. of ACM Multimedia 2005, Singapore, pp.535 - 538 (2005)
22. Jumisko-Pyykkö, S., Häkkinen, J. "I would like see the face and at least hear the voice": Effects of Screen Size and Audio-video Ratio to Perception of Quality in Mobile Television. Proc. of 4th European Interactive TV Conference Athens, Greece, May 18-19, 2006.
23. Kitawaki, N., Arayama, Y., Yamada, T. "Multimedia opinion model based on media interaction of audiovisual communications," Proc. 4th International Conference of MESAQIN 2005, pp.5-10 (2005)
24. Knoche, H., de Meer, H., Kirsh, D. "Compensating for Low Frame Rates,". Proc. of CHI 2005, 4-7 April 2005, Portland, OR, USA (2005).
25. Knoche, H., McCarthy, J. D., Sasse, M. A. "Can Small Be Beautiful? Assessing Image Size Requirements for Mobile TV," In Proceedings of ACM Multimedia 2005, 561-, 6-12 November, Singapore (2005).
26. McCarthy, J. D., Sasse M. A. and Miras D. "Sharp or Smooth?: Comparing the Effect of Quantization vs. Frame Rate for Streamed Video", Proc. of the 2004 conference on Human factors in computing systems. Vienna, p. 535-542(2004).
27. McGurk, H. & MacDonald, J. "Hearing lips and seeing voices", Nature 264, 746-748 (1976).
28. Myllymäki, P., Silander, T., Tirri, H., Uronen,P., "B-Course: A Web-Based Tool for Bayesian and Causal Data Analysis," International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, Vol 11, No. 3, pp. 369-387(2002).
29. Nyman, G., Radun, J., Leisti, T., Oja, J., Ojanen, H., Olives, J-L., Vuori, T., Häkkinen, J. "What do users really perceive: probing the subjective image quality," Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. SPIE-6059, pp. 13-19 (2006).
30. Radun, J., Virtanen, T.,. Nyman, G., Olives, J-L., "Explaining multivariate image quality - Interpretation-Based Quality Approach," Proc. of ICIS 06, Rochester, NY, USA, 119-121 (2006).
31. Reeves, B. & Nass, C., The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press. 1996.
32. Reiter, U. & Kohler, T. "Criteria for the subjective assessment of bimodal perception in interactive AV application systems," Proc. 9th International Symposium on Consumer Electronics, 14-16 June 2005 pp. 186-192 (2005).
33. Ries, M. Puglia, R., Tebaldi, T., Memethova, O., Rupp, M. "Audiovisual Quality Estimations For Mobile Streaming Services," Proc. of the 2nd International Symposium on Wireless Communication Systems, Siena, Italy (2005).
34. Rogers E. M. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed., New York: Free Press, 2003. p. 560.
35. Strauss, A., and Corbin, J., Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.),Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998.
36. Södergård, C. (ed.). "Mobile television, technology and user experiences. Report on the mobile TV project." VTT Publications 506. Espoo. 2003.
37. Ts'o, D.Y. & Roe A. W., "Functional compartments in visual cortex: segregation and interactions". In The Cognitive Neurosciences (Gazzaniga MS, ed.). M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 325-337 (1995).
38. Watson, A. Sasse, M.A., "Multimedia conferencing via multicast: Determining the Quality of Service required by the end-user". Proc. International Workshop on Audio-Visual Services over Packet Networks, Aberdeen, 1997.
39. Watson, A. &Sasse, M. A., "The Good, the Bad, and the Muffled: The Impact of Different Degradations on Internet Speech," Procs 8th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Marina Del Rey, CA; pp.269-302(2000).
40. Wilson, G. & Sasse, M. A., "Do Users Always Know What's Good For Them? Utilising Physiological Responses to Assess Media Quality," Proc. of HCI 2000 (September 5th-8th, Sunderland, UK), pp.327-339(2000)
41. Wilson, G. & Sasse, M. A., "Investigating the Impact of Audio Degradations on Users: Subjective vs. Objective Assessment Methods," Procs OZCHI'2000, Sydney, Dec. pp. 135-142 (2000)
42. Winkler, S. & Faller, C. "Audiovisual quality evaluation of low-bitrate video," Proc. SPIE/IS&T Human Vision and Electronic Imaging, vol. 5666. San Jose, United States of America, pp. 139-148(2005)