Advertisement

Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 74, Issue 2, pp 367–380 | Cite as

Quality evaluation of long duration AV content—an extended analysis using a novel assessment methodology

  • Adam BorowiakEmail author
  • Ulrich Reiter
Article
  • 166 Downloads

Abstract

This paper is an extension of our previous work describing a novel methodology for quality assessment of long duration audiovisual content. In this article we focus on data analysis of results obtained from two experiments conducted using the new methodology. In the first study, we found that the time dimension does not influence participants’ expectations with respect to perceived video quality and that a possible increase or decrease in acceptable quality level is rather directly related to the presented material itself. Moreover, we found that participants are less sensitive to quality changes when the process is controlled externally than when they are in charge of the quality adjustment. A second experiment (study 2) was performed to evaluate the effect of simultaneous quality changes in the two modalities (audio and video) which confirmed the previous results.

Keywords

Subjective audiovisual quality evaluation Data analysis Quality of experience (QoE) Long duration assessment Audio quality Video quality 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was performed within the PERCEVAL project, funded by The Research Council of Norway under project number 193034/S10.

References

  1. 1.
    Alpert T, Contin L (1997) DSCQE (Double Stimulus using a Continuous Quality Evaluation) experiment for the evaluation of the MPEG-4 VM on error robustness functionality. ISO/IEC – JTC1/SC29/WG11, MPEG 97/M1604Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bech S, Zacharov N (2006) Perceptual audio evaluation—theory, method and applicationGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borowiak A, Reiter U, Svensson UP (2012) Quality evaluation of long duration audiovisual content. The 9th Annual IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference—Special Session on Quality of Experience (QoE) for Multimedia Communications, Las Vegas, pp 353–357Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borowiak A, Reiter U, Svensson UP (2013) Evaluation of audio quality requirements over extended periods of time using long duration audiovisual content—cross modal perception. J Signal Process Syst. doi: 10.1007/s11265-013-0777-8 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen KT, Wu CC, Chang YC, Lei CL (2009) A crowdsourceable QoE evaluation framework for multimedia content . In: Proc. of the 17th ACM international conference on Multimedia, Beijing, pp 491–500Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fechner GT (1966) Elements of psychophysics (vol. 1). Original work published in 1860. Translated by H.E. Adler Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghinea G, Chen SY (2003) The impact of cognitive styles on perceptual distributed multimedia quality. Br J Educ Technol 34(4):393–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hamberg R, de Ridder H (1995) Continuous assessment of perceptual image quality. J Opt Soc Am A 12:2573–2577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ITU-R (2009) Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures BT.500-12Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ITU-T Rec. P.910 (1999) Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. Int. Telecomm, UnionGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ITU-T Rec. P911 (1998) Subjective audiovisual quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. Int. Telecomm, UnionGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    L.A.M.E (Lame Ain’t an MP3 Encoder)—The Hydrogenaudio recommended MP3 encoder. http://lame.sourceforge.net
  13. 13.
    Pinson M, Wolf S (2003) Comparing subjective video quality testing methodologies. In: Visual Communications and Image Processing 2003. Proc SPIE 5150:573–582Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reiter U (2010) Towards a classification of audiovisual media content. In: Proc. of the 129th Convention of the Audio Engineering Society. AES, San Francisco, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rossi P, Gilula Z, Allenby G (2001) Overcoming scale usage heterogeneity: a Bayesian hierarchical approach. J Am Stat Assoc 96(453):20–31CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang H, Qian X, Liu G (2010) Inter mode decision based on just noticeable difference Profile. In: Proc. of 2010 I.E. 17th International Conference on Image Processing, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Watson A, Sasse MA (1998) Measuring perceived quality of speech and video in multimedia conferencing applications. In: Proc. of ACM Multimedia 1998, ACM, pp 55–60Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Winkler S, Dufaux F (2003) Video quality evaluation for mobile applications. Proc SPIE/IS&T Vis Commun Image Proc Conf 5150:593–603Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang X, Tan Y, Ling N (2006) Rate control for H.264 with two-step quantization parameter determination but single-pass encoding. EURASIP J Appl Sig Process :1–13Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zajonc RB (1980) Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. Am Psychol 35(2):151–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations