Kamil Koniuch
ABSTRACT
Users' perception of multimedia quality and satisfaction with multimedia services are the subject of various studies in the field of Quality of Experience (QoE). In this respect, subjective studies of quality represent an important part of the multimedia optimization process. However, researchers who measure QoE have to face its multidimensional character and address the fact that quality perception is influenced by numerous factors. To address this issue, experiments measuring QoE often limit the scope of factors influencing subjective judgments by administering laboratory protocols. However, the generalizability of the results gathered with such protocols is limited. The proposed PhD dissertation aims to address this challenge. In order to increase the generalizability of QoE studies we started with an identification of factors influencing user multimedia experience in a natural context. We proposed a new theoretical model of video QoE based on both original research and a literature review. This new theoretical framework allowed us to propose new experimental designs introducing influencing factors one by one in an additive manner. Thanks to the model, we can also propose comparable experiments which could differ in ecological validity. The proposed theoretical framework can be adjusted to other multimedia in the future.
- Mohammed Alreshoodi and John Woods. 2013. Survey on QoE\QoS correlation models for multimedia services. arXiv preprint arXiv:1306.0221 (2013).Google Scholar
- Altanshagai Batmunkh. 2022. Carbon Footprint of The Most Popular Social Media Platforms. Sustainability 14, 4 (2022), 2195.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kjell Brunnström, Sergio Ariel Beker, Katrien De Moor, Ann Dooms, Sebastian Egger, Marie-Neige Garcia, Tobias Hossfeld, Satu Jumisko-Pyykkö, Christian Keimel, Mohamed-Chaker Larabi, et al. 2013. Qualinet white paper on definitions of quality of experience. (2013).Google Scholar
- ITUR BT. 2019. 500-14. BT. 500: Methodologies for the Subjective Assessment of the Quality of Television Images. International Telecommunications Union: Geneva, Switzerland (2019).Google Scholar
- Jigna Chandaria, Jeff Hunter, and Adrian Williams. 2011. The carbon footprint of watching television, comparing digital terrestrial television with video-on-demand. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology. IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Katrien De Moor, M Rios Quintero, Dominik Strohmeier, and Alexander Raake. 2013. Evaluating QoE by means of traditional and alternative subjective measures: an exploratory' living room lab'study on IPTV. Vienna, Austria (2013).Google Scholar
- Sebastian Egger, Peter Reichl, and Katrin Schoenenberg. 2014. Quality of experience and interactivity. In Quality of experience. Springer, 149--161.Google Scholar
- Oche Ejembi and Saleem N Bhatti. 2015. The energy cost of your Netflix habit. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Sixth International Conference on Future Energy Systems. 225--226.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Xavier Gabaix and David Laibson. 2008. The seven properties of good models. The foundations of positive and normative economics: A handbook (2008), 292--319.Google Scholar
- Boni García, Francisco Gortázar, Micael Gallego, and Andrew Hines. 2020. Assessment of qoe for video and audio in webrtc applications using full-reference models. Electronics 9, 3 (2020), 462.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Boni García, Luis López-Fernández, Francisco Gortázar, and Micael Gallego. 2019. Practical evaluation of VMAF perceptual video quality for WebRTC applications. Electronics 8, 8 (2019), 854.Google ScholarCross Ref
- David Geerts, Katrien De Moor, István Ketykó, An Jacobs, Jan Van den Bergh, Wout Joseph, Luc Martens, and Lieven De Marez. 2010. Linking an integrated framework with appropriate methods for measuring QoE. In 2010 Second International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX). 158--163. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jasmina Baraković Husić and Sabina Baraković. 2022. Multidimensional modelling of quality of experience for video streaming. Computers in Human Behavior 129 (2022), 107155.Google ScholarDigital Library
- ITU-R. 2020. 500-14: Methodologies for the Subjective Assessment of the Quality of Television Images. ITU: Geneva, Switzerland (2020). Google ScholarCross Ref
- ITUT. 2016. P.800.1 (07/16): Mean opinion score (MOS) terminology. ITU: Geneva, Switzerland (2016).Google Scholar
- István Ketykó, Katrien De Moor, Wout Joseph, Luc Martens, and Lieven De Marez. 2010. Performing QoE-measurements in an actual 3G network. In 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB). IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kamil Koniuch, Sabina Baraković, Jasmina Baraković Husić, Katrien De Moor, Lucjan Janowski, and Michał Wierzchoń. 2023. Top-down and bottom-up approaches to video Quality of Experience studies; overview and proposal of a new model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11648 (2023).Google Scholar
- Dayoung Lee, Jungwoo Lee, and Minseok Song. 2019. Video quality adaptation for limiting transcoding energy consumption in video servers. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 126253--126264.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zhi Li, Anne Aaron, Ioannis Katsavounidis, Anush Moorthy, and Megha Manohara. 2016. Toward a practical perceptual video quality metric. The Netflix Tech Blog 6, 2 (2016).Google Scholar
- Artur Marchewka, Łukasz Żurawski, Katarzyna Jednoróg, and Anna Grabowska. 2014. The Nencki Affective Picture System (NAPS): Introduction to a novel, standardized, wide-range, high-quality, realistic picture database. Behavior research methods 46, 2 (2014), 596--610.Google Scholar
- Richard McElreath. 2020. The Many Variables & The Spurious Waffles. In Statistical Rethinking. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 123--160.Google Scholar
- Vignesh V Menon, Christian Feldmann, Hadi Amirpour, Mohammad Ghanbari, and Christian Timmerer. 2022. VCA: Video complexity analyzer. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference. 259--264.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sebastian Möller, Marcel Wältermann, and Marie-Neige Garcia. 2014. Features of Quality of Experience. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 73--84. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hajer Gahbiche Msakni and Habib Youssef. 2016. Impact of user emotion and video content on video Quality of Experience. In Proc. 5th ISCA/DEGA Workshop on Perceptual Quality of Systems (PQS 2016). 97--101.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alper Özer, Mehpare Tokay Argan, and Metin Argan. 2013. The effect of mobile service quality dimensions on customer satisfaction. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 99 (2013), 428--438.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Borysław Paulewicz, Marta Siedlecka, and Marcin Koculak. 2020. Confounding in studies on metacognition: A preliminary causal analysis framework. Frontiers in Psychology 11 (2020), 1933.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alexander Raake and Sebastian Egger. 2014. Quality and Quality of Experience. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 11--33. Google ScholarCross Ref
- ITUT Recommendation. 2008. E. 800, Definitions of terms related to quality of service. International Telecommunication Union's Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) Std (2008).Google Scholar
- Peter Reichl, Sebastian Egger, Sebastian Möller, Kalevi Kilkki, Markus Fiedler, Tobias Hoßfeld, Christos Tsiaras, and Alemnew Asrese. 2015. Towards a comprehensive framework for QoE and user behavior modelling. In 2015 Seventh International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX). IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ulrich Reiter, Kjell Brunnström, Katrien De Moor, Mohamed-Chaker Larabi, Manuela Pereira, Antonio Pinheiro, Junyong You, and Andrej Zgank. 2014. Factors influencing quality of experience. In Quality of experience. Springer, 55--72.Google Scholar
- Werner Robitza, Alexander M Dethof, Steve Göring, Alexander Raake, André Beyer, and Tim Polzehl. 2020. Are you still watching? streaming video quality and engagement assessment in the crowd. In 2020 Twelfth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX). IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Werner Robitza and Alexander Raake. 2016. (Re-) actions speak louder than words? A novel test method for tracking user behavior in Web video services. In 2016 Eighth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX). IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Werner Robitza, Sabine Schönfellner, and Alexander Raake. 2016. A theoretical approach to the formation of quality of experience and user behavior in multimedia services. In 5th ISCA/DEGA Workshop on Perceptual Quality of Systems. 39--43.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marwin Schmitt, Dick CA Bulterman, and Pablo S Cesar. 2018. The contrast effect: QoE of mixed video-qualities at the same time. Quality and User Experience 3, 1 (2018), 1--17.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Herbert ASimon. 2001. Science seeks parsimony, not simplicity: Searching for pattern in phenomena. Simplicity, inference and modelling: Keeping it sophisticatedly simple (2001), 32--72.Google Scholar
- Gabriela Wielgus, Lucjan Janowski, Kamil Koniuch, Mikolaj Leszczuk, and Rafal Figlus. 2023. Proposing more ecologically-valid experiment protocol using YouTube platform. Electronic Imaging 35 (2023), 1--6.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Factors Influencing Video Quality of Experience in Ecologically Valid Experiments: Measurements and a Theoretical Mode
Recommendations
Modelling of spatio-temporal interaction for video quality assessment
Video services have appeared in the recent years due to advances in video coding and convergence to IP networks. As these emerging services mature, the ability to deliver adequate quality to end-users becomes increasingly important. However, the ...
Impact of Content on Subjective Quality of Experience Assessment for 3D Video
QoEVMA '22: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Quality of Experience in Visual Multimedia ApplicationsOngoing improvements in the field of visual entertainment may incline users to display 3D video content on various terminal devices provided satisfying Quality of Experience. This study aims to determine whether the cognitive features of appealing and ...
Understanding the role of social context and user factors in video Quality of Experience
We examine the impact of social context on compressed video Quality of Experience.We analyze the effect on QoE of user factors such as interest and demographics.Co-viewing videos increases user's enjoyment and endurability of the experience.Low bitrate ...
Comments