Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Quality of Experience pp 11–33Cite as

Quality and Quality of Experience

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: T-Labs Series in Telecommunication Services ((TLABS))

Abstract

The chapter discusses the processes of human perception and experiencing, and of quality formation. In this context, definitions of relevant terms are re-visited and adapted to the presented, updated view, and different aspects of research into quality at large and into Quality of Experience are summarized. Using a conceptual model, the quality formation process is analyzed in view of different contexts and tasks, such as taking part in a quality test under controlled conditions, experiencing a video presentation or concert, or exploring a system or device when considering a purchase in a shop. We provide a short overview of different quality assessment methods, and outline related trends in QoE research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The authors of this chapter have been the corresponding authors for Chaps. 2 and 3 of the Qualinet White Paper on QoE. The present chapter is an updated and more in-depth consideration of the quality and QoE concepts.

  2. 2.

    It must be noted that the engineering, computer science and networking communities sometimes still use “QoE” in a misleading way in terms of technological aspects that are likely to impact QoE as perceived by users, without actually assessing or quantifying QoE or the QoE impact. For further discussion of QoE and service performance in terms of Quality of Service (QoS) see Sect. 2.2 and especially Chap. 6.

  3. 3.

    It is noted that in case of experiencing as it may, for example, happen during dreams, or processes of thinking, conception or design, parts of the sensory information are replaced by sketches from memory. This type of experiencing is explicitly excluded here.

  4. 4.

    Note that “utility” and “utility function” also are central terms in micro-economics, however referring to the mapping of a resource to the value for a customer. Economic aspects related with QoE are further discussed in Chap. 7.

  5. 5.

    Of course quality-related assumptions may be associated with sensory or emotional references, too.

  6. 6.

    Note that in our view presented here, experiencing is the process, which however is evaluated in terms of the features associated with the perceptual events happening during that process. Here, it is interesting to note that the German translation of quality of experiencing or “quality of experience” as used by Kahneman is Qualität des Erlebens, which explicitly reflects that experiencing is a process.

  7. 7.

    Initial works on Gestalt-theory are those by its founders Wertheimer [61, 62] and Koffka [31]. Its use in, for example, auditory scene analysis has been discussed in detail by Bregman [10].

  8. 8.

    According to Jekosch, “controlled” perception can be distinguished from “random” perception/ quality assessment. Here, natural experience(ing) without a dedicated quality judgment task, for example, corresponds to “random”, and task-driven quality assessment to “controlled”.

  9. 9.

    This also includes whether perceived quality is currently relevant for the customer for acceptability.

  10. 10.

    Often referred to as “subjective”, a somewhat misleading term avoided here.

  11. 11.

    Often referred to as “objective”, which is even less appropriate than “subjective”, since it implies that instrumental measurements bear objectivity, which they only do in case that they can be generalized.

References

  1. Amelang M, Bartussek DGS, Hagemann D (2006) Differentielle Psychologie und Persönlichkeitsforschung. W. Kohlhammer Verlag

    Google Scholar 

  2. Baddeley A (1997) Human memory—theory and practice. Taylor & Francis: Psychology Press, East Sussex

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baddeley A (2003) Working memory: looking back and looking forward. Nat Rev Neurosci 4:829–839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bentham J (1948) An introduction to the principle of morals and legislations. Blackwell, reprinted. Oxford, UK (1789)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Blauert J (1997) Spatial hearing: the psychophysics of human sound localization. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  6. Blauert J (2012) A perceptionists view on psychoacoustics. Arch Acoust 37(3):365–371. doi:10.2478/v10168-012-0046-z

    Google Scholar 

  7. Blauert J, Jekosch U (2003) Concepts behind sound quality: some basic considerations. In: Proceedings of Internoise 2003, pp 72–79

    Google Scholar 

  8. Blauert J, Kolossa D, Obermayer K, Adiloglu K (2013) Further challenges and the road ahead. In: Blauert J (ed) The technology of binaural listening, Chap. 18. Springer, Berlin

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Boulding W, Karla A, Staelin R, Zeithaml V (1993) A dynamic process model of service quality: from expectations to behavioral intentions. J Mark Res 30(1):7–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bregman AS (1990) Auditory scene analysis. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  11. Clifton R, Morongiello B, Kulig J, Dowd J (1981) Newborn’s orientation towards sounds: possible implication for cortical development. Child Dev 52(3):833–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Coltheart M (1980) Iconic memory and visible persistence. Percept Psychophysics 27(3):183–228. doi:10.3758/BF03204258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cowan N (1984) On short and long auditory stores. Psychol Bull 96(2):341–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. De Moor K (2012) Are engineers from Mars and users from Venus? Bridging the gaps in quality of experience research: reflections on and experiences from an interdisciplinary journey. Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit Gent

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dobrian F, Awan A, Joseph D, Ganjam A, Zhan J, Sekar V, Stioca I, Zhang H (2013) Understanding the impact of video quality on user engagement. Commun ACM 56(3):91–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Engelke U, Kaprykowsky H, Zepernik HJ, Ndjiki-Nya P (2011) Visual attention in quality assessment. IEEE Signal Process Mag (November):50–59

    Google Scholar 

  17. Garcia MN, Raake A (2011) Frame-layer packet-based parametric video quality model for encrypted video in IPTV services. In: Proceedings of International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Garcia MN, Schleicher R, Raake A (2011) Impairment-factor-based audiovisual quality model for IPTV: influence of video resolution, degradation type, and content type. EURASIP J Image Video Process 2011:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Geerts D, Moor KD, Ketyko I, Jacobs A, den Bergh JV, Joseph W, Martens L, Marez LD (2010) Linking an integrated framework with appropriate methods for measuring QoE. In: Proceedings of International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hoßfeld T, Strohmeier D, Raake A, Schatz R (2013) Pippi-Longstocking calculus for temporal stimuli pattern on YouTube QoE. In: Proceedings of the 5th workshop on mobile video, MoVid ’13. ACM, New York, pp 37–42

    Google Scholar 

  21. International Organization for Standardization: ISO 9000:2000 (2000) Quality management systems: fundamentals and vocabulary

    Google Scholar 

  22. Itti L, Koch C (2001) Computational modelling of visual attention. Nat Rev Neurosci 2(3):194–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. ITU-T Rec (2009) G.107 The E-model, a computational model for use in transmission planning. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jackson F (1982) Epiphenomenal qualia. Philos Q 32(127):127–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jekosch U (2005) Assigning meaning to sounds: semiotics in the context of product-sound design. In: Blauert J (ed) Communication acoustics. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jekosch U (2005) Voice and speech quality perception—assessment and evaluation. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jumisko-Pyykko S, Hakkinen J, Nyman G (2007) Experienced quality factors—qualitative evaluation approach to audiovisual quality. Proc SPIE 6507:65070M

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kahneman D (2003) Experienced utility and objective happiness: a moment-based approach. In: Brocas I, Carrillo JD (eds) The psychology of economic decisions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 187–208

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kahneman D (2003) Objective happiness. In: Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwarz N (eds) Well-being: the foundations of hedonic psychology. Russell Sage Foundation, pp 3–25

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kano N, Seraku N, Takahashi F, Tsuji S (1984) Attractive quality and must-be quality. J Jpn Soc Qual Control 14(2):39–48

    Google Scholar 

  31. Koffka K (1922) Perception: an introduction to the Gestalt-Theorie. Psychol Bull 19(10):531–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lawless HT, Heymann H (2010) Sensory evaluation of food: principles and practices, vol 5999. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Lederman SJ, Klatzky RL (2009) Haptic perception: a tutorial. Attention, Percept Psychophysics 71(7):1439–1459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Letowski T (1989) Sound quality assessment: concepts and criteria. In: 87th Convention Audio Engineering Society

    Google Scholar 

  35. Martens H, Martens M (2001) Multivariate analysis of quality. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  36. Massaro DW (1975) Backward recognition masking. J Acoust Soc Am 58(5):1059–1065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Möller S (2000) Assessment and prediction of speech quality in telecommunications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. Möller S (2010) Quality engineering: Qualität kommunikationstechnischer Systeme. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  39. Möller S, Chan WY, Côté N, Falk T, Raake A, Wältermann M (2011) Speech quality estimation: models and trends. IEEE Signal Process Mag 28(6):18–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Möller S, Le Callet P, Perkis A (eds) (2012) Qualinet white paper on definitions of Quality of Experience—output version of the Dagstuhl seminar 12181: European network on Quality of Experience in multimedia systems and services (COST Action IC 1003). Lausanne, 1.1 edn.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Neisser U (1978) Perceiving, anticipating and imagining. Minn Stud Philos Sci 9:89–106

    Google Scholar 

  42. Neisser U (1994) Multiple systems: a new approach to cognitive theory. Eur J Cogn Psychol 6(3):225–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Nöth W (2000) Handbuch der Semiotik. Metzler, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ogden CK, Richards IA (1960) The meaning of meaning, 10th edn. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., London

    Google Scholar 

  45. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml V, Berry L (1985) A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. J Mark 49(Fall 1985):41–50

    Google Scholar 

  46. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml V, Berry LL (1988) Servqual. J Retail 64(1):12–40

    Google Scholar 

  47. Peirce CS (1986) Semiotische Schriften, vol 1. H. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main

    Google Scholar 

  48. Pervin LA, John OP (eds) (2001) Handbook of personality theory and research. The Guilford Press, New York, pp 102–138. Cited from Carducci B (2009) The psychology of personality. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  49. Raake A (2006) Short- and long-term packet loss behavior: towards speech quality prediction for arbitrary loss distributions. IEEE Trans Audio Speech Lang 14(6):1957–1968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Raake A (2006) Speech quality of VoIP: assessment and prediction. Wiley, Chichester

    Book  Google Scholar 

  51. Raake A, Blauert J (2013) Comprehensive modeling of the formation process of sound-quality. In: Proceedings of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (QoMEX). Klagenfurt, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  52. Raake A, Gustafsson J, Argyropoulos S, Garcia MN, Lindegren D, Heikkila G, Pettersson M, List P, Feiten B (2011) IP-based mobile and fixed network audiovisual media services. IEEE Signal Process Mag 28(6):68–79

    Google Scholar 

  53. Raake A, Schoenenberg K, Skowronek J, Egger S (2013) Predicting speech quality based on interactivity and delay. In: Proceedings of INTERSPEECH

    Google Scholar 

  54. Reeves CA, Bednar DA (1994) Defining quality: alternatives and implications. Acad Manage Rev 19(3):419–445

    Google Scholar 

  55. Rosen JD (2010) The power of the SILK codec—skype blogs. http://blogs.skype.com/2010/09/28/the-power-of-silk

  56. Sackl A, Schatz R (2013) Evaluating the impact of expectations on end-user quality perception. In: Proceedings of International Workshop Perceptual Quality of Systems (PQS), pp 122–128

    Google Scholar 

  57. Schoenenberg K, Raake A, Koeppe J (2013) Are you just a bit slow? About misattribution of transmission delay to attributes of the person at the far-end. Int J Human-Comput Stud (to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Shaikh J, Fiedler M, Arlos P, Collange D (2008) On the use of TCP interruptions to assess user experience on web. In: Third Euro-NF workshop on socio-economic issues in networks of the future

    Google Scholar 

  59. Staelens N, Moens S, Van den Broeck W, Mariën I, Vermeulen B, Lambert P, Van de Walle R, Demeester P (2010) Assessing Quality of Experience of IPTV and video on demand services in real-life environments. IEEE Trans Broadcast 56(4):458–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Weiss B, Möller S, Wechsung I, Kühnel C (2011) Quality of experiencing multi-modal interaction. In: Minker W, Lee GG, Nakamura S, Mariani J (eds) Spoken dialogue systems technology and design. Springer, New York, pp 213–230

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  61. Wertheimer M (1923) Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt. II. Psychologische Forschung 4(1):301–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wertheimer M (1938) Gestalt theory. Hayes Barton Press. http://books.google.de/books?id=PhlN945ORCYC

  63. Winkler S (2005) Digital video quality: vision models and metrics. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  64. Winkler S, Mohandas P (2008) The evolution of video quality measurement: from PSNR to hybrid metrics. IEEE Trans Broadcast 54(3):660–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Wu HR, Rao KR (2006) Digital video image quality and perceptual coding. CRC/Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  66. Zeithaml VA, Berry LL, Parasuraman A (1993) The nature and determants of customer expectations of service. J Acad Mark Sci 21(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Zeithaml VA, Parasuraman A, Berry L (1990) Delivering quality service. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

In the course of writing Chaps. 2 and 3 of the Qualinet QoE White Paper [40], the authors had different fruitful discussions and exchanges with the respective chapter co-authors, which are gratefully acknowledged. Further, we are grateful to Jens Blauert for his in-depth additional review of our chapter and the constructive proposals for improvement.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Assessment of IP-based Applications, Telekom Innovation Labs, TU Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Alexander Raake

  2. Telecommunications Research Center Vienna (FTW), Vienna, Austria

    Sebastian Egger

Authors
  1. Alexander Raake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sebastian Egger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Raake .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Quality and Usability Lab Telekom Innovation Laboratories, TU Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Sebastian Möller

  2. Assessment of IP-based Applications Telekom Innovation Laboratories, TU Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Alexander Raake

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Raake, A., Egger, S. (2014). Quality and Quality of Experience. In: Möller, S., Raake, A. (eds) Quality of Experience. T-Labs Series in Telecommunication Services. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02681-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02681-7_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02680-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02681-7

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation