Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Factors Influencing Quality of Experience

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Quality of Experience

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

Abstract

In this chapter different factors that may influence Quality of Experience (QoE) in the context of media consumption, networked services, and other electronic communication services and applications, are discussed. QoE can be subject to a range of complex and strongly interrelated factors, falling into three categories: human, system and context influence factors (IFs). With respect to Human IFs, we discuss variant and stable factors that may potentially bear an influence on QoE, either for low-level (bottom-up) or higher-level (top-down) cognitive processing. System IFs are classified into four distinct categories, namely content-, media-, network- and device-related IFs. Finally, the broad category of possible Context IFs is decomposed into factors linked to the physical, temporal, social, economic, task and technical information context. The overview given here illustrates the complexity of QoE and the broad range of aspects that potentially have a major influence on it.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note that the socio-economic aspects are also considered to be part of the CIFs, demonstrating that some factors are very hard to disentangle and categorize. This is reflected in the overlapping areas of IFs in Fig. 4.1.

  2. 2.

    User activity context may be strongly related to task context, for instance when the user tries to achieve a certain goal.

  3. 3.

    http://www.google.com/insidesearch/plus.html

References

  1. Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience — Output version of the Dagstuhl seminar 12181 (2012) In: Le Callet P, Möller S, Perkis A (eds) European network on quality of experience in multimedia systems and services (COST Action IC 1003), Version 1.1, Lausanne

    Google Scholar 

  2. Geerts D, De Moor K, Ketykó I, Jacobs A, Van den Bergh J, Joseph W, Martens L, De Marez L (2010) Linking an integrated framework with appropriate methods for measuring QoE. In: 2010 second international workshop on quality of multimedia experience, pp 158–163

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wechsung I, Engelbrecht K-P, Kühnel C, Möller S, Weiss B (2012) Measuring the quality of service and quality of experience of multimodal human-machine interaction. J Multimodal User Interfaces 6(1–2):73–85. doi:10.1007/s12193-011-0088-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jumisko-Pyykkö S (2011) User-centered quality of experience and its evaluation methods for mobile television. Doctoral thesis, Tampere University of Technology, Tampere

    Google Scholar 

  5. Quintero MR, Raake A (2011) Towards assigning value to multimedia QoE. In: Third international, workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), pp 1–6

    Google Scholar 

  6. Laghari KUR, Crespi N, Connelly K (2012) Toward total quality of experience: a QoE model in a communication ecosystem. Commun Mag IEEE 50(4):58–65

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wechsung I, Schulz M, Engelbrecht K-P, Niemann J, Möller S (2011) All users are (Not) equal-the influence of user characteristics on perceived quality, modality choice and performance. In: Delgado RL-C, Kobayashi T (eds) Proceedings of the paralinguistic information and its integration in spoken dialogue systems workshop. Springer, New York, pp 175–186

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sackl A, Masuch K, Egger S, Schatz R (2012) Wireless vs. wireline shootout: how user expectations influence quality of experience. In: Fourth international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), 5–7 July 2012, pp 148–149

    Google Scholar 

  9. Burbeck CA, Kelly DH (1980) Spatiotemporal characteristics of visual mechanisms: excitatory-inhibitory model. JOSA 70(9):1121–1126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. You J, Xing L, Perkis A, Ebrahimi T (2012) Visual contrast sensitivity guided video quality assessment. In: 2012 IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo (ICME). IEEE, pp 824–829

    Google Scholar 

  11. Greenberg S, Ainsworth WA (2004) Speech processing in the auditory system: an overview. In: Speech processing in the auditory system. Springer, pp 1–62

    Google Scholar 

  12. Goldstein EB (2009) Sensation and perception, 8th edn. Cengage Learning, Wadsworth

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sackl A, Egger S, Zwickl P, Reichl P (2012) The QoE alchemy: turning quality into money. Experiences with a refined methodology for the evaluation of willingness-to-pay for service quality. In: Fourth international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), 5–7 July 2012, pp 170–175

    Google Scholar 

  14. Reiter U (2010) Perceived quality in game audio. In: Grimshaw M (ed) Game sound technology and player interaction: concepts and developments. IGI Global, New York

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rokeach M (1973) The nature of human values. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hassenzahl M (2008) User experience (UX): towards an experiential perspective on product quality. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference of the association francophone d’interaction homme-machine, ACM Press, New York, pp 11–15

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol 25(1):54–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Scherer KR (2005) What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Soc Sci Inf 44(4):695–729

    Google Scholar 

  19. Desmet PMA (2002) Designing emotions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, TU Delft, Delft, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  20. Robert S, John J, Hogan B (1997) Handbook of personality psychology. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ghinea G, Chen SY (2003) The impact of cognitive styles on perceptual distributed multimedia quality. Br J Educ Technol 34(4):393–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rainer B, Waltl M, Cheng E, Shujau M, Timmerer C, Davis S, Burnett I, Ritz C, Hellwagner H (2012) Investigating the impact of sensory effects on the quality of experience and emotional response in web videos. In: Fourth international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX). IEEE, pp 278–283

    Google Scholar 

  23. Arndt S, Antons J-N, Schleicher R, Möller S, Curio G (2012) Perception of low-quality videos analyzed by means of electroencephalography. In: 2012 fourth international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX). IEEE, pp 284–289

    Google Scholar 

  24. Reiter U, De Moor K (2012) Content categorization based on implicit and explicit user feedback: combining self-reports with EEG emotional state analysis. In: 2012 fourth international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX). IEEE, pp 266–271

    Google Scholar 

  25. Frijda NH (1994) Varieties of affect: emotions and episodes, moods, and sentiments. In: Ekman P, Davidson R (eds) The nature of emotions: fundamental questions. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 59–67

    Google Scholar 

  26. Forgas JP, Bower GH (1987) Mood effects on person-perception judgments. J Pers Soc Psychol 53(1):53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bless H, Clore GL, Schwarz N, Golisano V, Rabe C, Wölk M (1996) Mood and the use of scripts: does a happy mood really lead to mindlessness? J Pers Soc Psychol 71(4):665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Angrilli A, Cherubini P, Pavese A, Manfredini S (1997) The influence of affective factors on time perception. Percept Psychophysics 59(6):972–982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Higgs B, Polonsky MJ, Hollick M (2005) Measuring expectations: forecast vs. ideal expectations. Does it really matter? J Retail Consum Serv 12(1):49–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sackl A et al (2013) Evaluating the impact of expectations on end-user quality perception. PQS workshop 2013, Vienna, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  31. Staelens N, Van den Broeck W, Pitrey Y, Vermeulen B, Demeester P (2012) Lessons learned during real-life QoE assessment. In: 10th European conference on interactive TV and video (Euro ITV-2012). Ghent University, Department of information technology, pp 1–4

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rumsey F, Zielinski S, Kassier R, Bech S (2005) Relationships between experienced listener ratings of multichannel audio quality and naive listener preferences. J Acoust Soc Am 117(6):3832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Speranza F, Poulin F, Renaud R, Caron M, Dupras J (2010) Objective and subjective quality assessment with experts and non-experts viewers. In: Proceedings of the second international workshop on quality of multimedia experience, Trondheim, Norway, pp 46–51

    Google Scholar 

  34. Quintero MR, Raake A (2012) Is taking into account the subjects degree of knowledge and expertise enough when rating quality? In: 2012 fourth international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), IEEE, pp 194–199

    Google Scholar 

  35. De Moor K (2012) Are engineers from Mars and users from Venus? Bridging gaps in quality of experience research: reflections on and experiences from an interdisciplinary journey. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ghent University

    Google Scholar 

  36. Radun J, Leisti T, Häkkinen JP, Ojanen HJ, Olives J, Vuori T, Nyman GS (2008) Content and quality: interpretation-based estimation of image quality. ACM Trans Appl Percept 4(4):21:1–21:15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Chen W, Fournier J, Barkowsky M, Le Callet P (2013) New stereoscopic video shooting rule based on stereoscopic distortion parameters and comfortable viewing zone. In: Stereoscopic displays and applications XXII, proceedings of SPIE-IS&T electronic imaging, vol: SPIE, vol. 7863

    Google Scholar 

  38. Zinner T, Hohlfeld O, Abboud O, Hoßfeld T (2010) Impact of frame rate and resolution on objective QoE metrics. In: Proceedings of second international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Jammeh E, Mkwawa I, Khan A, Goudarzi M, Sun L, Ifeachor E (2012) Quality of experience (QoE) driven adaptation scheme for voice/video over IP. Telecommun Syst 49(1):99–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. ITU BT.1359: Relative timing of sound and vision for broadcasting

    Google Scholar 

  41. Nahrstedt K, Steinmetz R (1995) Resource management in networked multimedia systems. IEEE Comput 1995:52–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Fiedler M, Hoßfeld T, Tran-Gia P (2010) A generic quantitative relationship between quality of experience and quality of service. Netw IEEE 24(2):36–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Brunnström K, Stålenbring D, Pettersson M, Gustafsson J (2010) The impact of transmission errors on progressive 720 lines HDTV coded with H.264. In: Rogowitz B, Pappas TN (eds) Proceedings of SPIE-IS&T human vision and electronic imaging XV, vol 7527, paper 56

    Google Scholar 

  44. Pratsolis D, Tsourakis N, Digalakis V (2007) Degradation of speech recognition performance over lossy data networks. In: Wmunep’07: Proceedings of the third ACM workshop on wireless multimedia networking and performance modeling, pp 88–91

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sackl A, Seufert M, Hoßfeld T (2013) Asking costs little? The impact of tasks in video QoE studies on user behavior and user ratings. In: PQS workshop 2013. Vienna, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  46. Tavakoli S, Gutiérrez J, García N (2013) Quality assessment of adaptive 3D video streaming. In: Three-dimensional image processing (3DIP) and applications. Burlingame, California, USA. 03 Feb 2013, vol Proc. SPIE 8650

    Google Scholar 

  47. Klompenhouwer MA (2006) Flat panel display signal processing: analysis and algorithms for improved static and dynamic resolution. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  48. Kaptein R, Kuijsters A, Lambooij M, IJsselsteijn WA, Heynderickx I (2008) Performance evaluation of 3D-TV systems. In: Proceedings of SPIE Image quality and system performance V, vol SPIE 6808, p 680819

    Google Scholar 

  49. Lambooij M, IJsselsteijn W, Heynderickx I (2009) Visual discomfort and visual fatigue of stereoscopic displays: a review. J Imaging Sci Technol 53(3):030201-1–030201-14

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wang K, Barkowsky M, Brunnström K, Sjöström M, Cousseau R, Le Callet P (2012) Perceived 3D TV transmission quality assessment: multi-laboratory results using absolute category rating on quality of experience scale. IEEE Trans Broadcast 58(4):544–557

    Google Scholar 

  51. Woods AJ, Docherty T, Koch R (1993) Image distortions in stereoscopic video systems. In: Proceedings of SPIE volume 1915 stereoscopic displays and applications IV, pp 36–48

    Google Scholar 

  52. Patterson R (2009) Review paper: human factors of stereo displays: an update. J Soc Inf Display 17(12):987–996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Gartner: Gartner says worldwide mobile phone sales declined 1.7 percent in 2012

    Google Scholar 

  54. Su J-H, Yeh H-H, Yu PS, Tseng VS (2010) Music recommendation using content and context information mining. Intell Syst IEEE 25(1):16–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Song S, Moustafa H, Afifi H (2012) Advanced IPTV services personalization through context-aware content recommendation. IEEE Trans Multimedia 14(6):1528–1537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Adomavicius G, Tuzhilin E (2005) Toward the next generation of recommender systems: a survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 17(6):734–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Chen Y-C, Huang H-C, Huang Y-M (2009) Community-based program recommendation for the next generation electronic program guide. IEEE Trans Consum Electron 55(2):707–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Qi X, Davison BD (2009) Web page classification: features and algorithms. ACM Comput Surv 41:1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Yu Z, Zhou X, Yu Z, Zhang D, Chin C-Y (2006) An OSGi-based infrastructure for context-aware multimedia services. Commun Mag IEEE 44(10):136–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Jumisko-Pyykkö S, Vainio T (2010) Framing the context of Use for mobile HCI. Review paper about mobile contexts of use between 2000–2007. Int J Mob Hum Comput Interact (IJMHCI) 3(4):1–28

    Google Scholar 

  61. Bradley NA, Dunlop MD (2005) Toward a multidisciplinary model of context to support context-aware computing. Hum Comput Interact 20(4):403–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Roto V (2006) Web browsing on mobile phones: characteristics of user experience. Doctoral dissertation, TKK Dissertations 49, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, Finland

    Google Scholar 

  63. Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila K, Ruuska S (2000) Designing mobile phones and communicators for consumers’ needs at nokia. In: Bergman E (ed) Information appliances and beyond: interaction design for consumer products, Morgan Kaufmann, Morgan Kaufmann

    Google Scholar 

  64. Wigelius H, Väätäjä H (2009) Dimensions of context affecting user experience in mobile work. In: Proceedings of INTERACT 2009, Aug 2009, Uppsala, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  65. Korhonen H, Arrasvuori J, Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila K (2010) Analysing user experience of personal mobile products through contextual factors. In: International conference on mobile and ubiquitous multimedia. Limassol, Cyprus

    Google Scholar 

  66. Rahman MA, El-Saddik A, Gueaieb W (2011) Augmenting context awareness by combining body sensor networks and social networks. IEEE Trans Instrum Measur 60(2):345–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Möller S, Engelbrecht K-P, Kühnel C, Wechsung I, Weiss B (2009) A taxonomy of quality of service and quality of experience of multimodal human-machine interaction. In: International workshop on quality of multimedia experience, pp 7,12, 29–31

    Google Scholar 

  68. Zhou L, Xiong N, Shu L, Vasilakos A, Yeo S-S (2010) Context-aware middleware for multimedia services in heterogeneous networks. Intell Syst IEEE 25(2):40–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. You S, Neumann U (2005) V-sentinel: a novel framework for situational awareness and surveillance. Proc SPIE 5778(713):713–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Wang Y, Krum DM, Coelho EM, Bowman DA (2007) Contextualized videos: combining videos, with environment models to support situational understanding. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 13(6):1568–1575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Borowiak A, Reiter U, Svensson UP (2013) Audio quality requirements and comparison of multimodal vs. unimodal perception of impairments for long duration content. J Sig Process Syst, May 2013. doi:10.1007/s11265-013-0777-8

  72. Hong J, Suh E-H, Kim J, Kim SY (2009) Context-aware system for proactive personalized service based on context history. Expert Syst Appl 36(4):7448–7457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Reynolds G, Barry D, Burker T, Coyle E (2008) Interacting with large music collections: towards the use of environmental metadata. In: Proceedings of IEEE Int’l conference on multimedia and expo, pp 989–992

    Google Scholar 

  74. Cardone G, Corradi A, Foschini L, Montanari R (2012) Socio-technical awareness to support recommendation and efficient delivery of IMS-enabled mobile services. Commun Mag IEEE 50(6):82–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Chakareski J, Frossard P (2010) Context-adaptive information flow allocation and media delivery in online social networks. IEEE J Sel Top Sig Process 4(4):732–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Reiter U, Weitzel M, Cao S (2007) Influence of interaction on perceived quality in audio visual applications: subjective assessment with n-back working memory task. In: Proceedings of AES 30th international conference. Saariselkä, Finland

    Google Scholar 

  77. Reiter U, Weitzel M (2007) Influence of interaction on perceived quality in audio visual applications: subjective assessment with n-back working memory task, II. In: AES 122nd convention. Vienna, Austria. Preprint 7046

    Google Scholar 

  78. Reiter U, Weitzel M (2007) Influence of interaction on perceived quality in audiovisual applications: evaluation of cross-modal influence. In: Proceedings of 13th international conference on auditory displays (ICAD). Montreal, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  79. Pashler HE (1999) The psychology of attention. 1st paperback edition, The MIT Press. Cambridge, MA, USA. ISBN 0-262-66156-X

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Katrien De Moor’s work was carried out during the tenure of an ERCIM “Alain Bensoussan” Fellowship Programme and received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no 246016.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Electronics and Telecommunications, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

    Ulrich Reiter

  2. Visual Media Quality, Acreo Swedish ICT AB and Mid Sweden University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Kjell Brunnström

  3. Department of Telematics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

    Katrien De Moor

  4. iMinds-MICT, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Katrien De Moor

  5. Université de Poitiers, Poitiers, France

    Mohamed-Chaker Larabi

  6. University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal

    Manuela Pereira & Antonio Pinheiro

  7. Christian Michelsen Research AS, Bergen, Norway

    Junyong You

  8. University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia

    Andrej Zgank

Authors
  1. Ulrich Reiter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kjell Brunnström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katrien De Moor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mohamed-Chaker Larabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Manuela Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Antonio Pinheiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Junyong You
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Andrej Zgank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrich Reiter .

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

Reiter, U. et al. (2014). Factors Influencing 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_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02681-7_4

  • 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