Advertisement

Study on the Quality of Experience Evaluation Metrics for Astronaut Virtual Training System

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10909)

Abstract

With the development of virtual reality (VR) technology, it is possible to train astronauts using VR. To make the system more efficient, it is necessary to study the quality of experience (QoE) of astronauts in the virtual environment (VE). Based on the characteristics of virtual training system and the needs of astronauts training, a set of metrics consisting of five higher-level metrics and fifteen lower-level metrics were put forward for the QoE evaluating of the system. In addition, the weight of each higher-level metrics is obtained using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method. The results of this paper can be used directly in the QoE evaluation of astronaut virtual training system in a quantitative way.

Keywords

Astronaut virtual training system Quality of experience Metrics 

References

  1. 1.
    ITU-T: Definition of quality of experience (QoE). International Telecommunication Union, Liaison Statement, Ref: TD 109rev2 (PLEN/12) (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Le Callet, P., Möller, S., Perkis, A. (eds.): Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience (2012). European Network on Quality of Experience in Multimedia Systems and Services (COST Action IC 1003), Version 1.2, Lausanne, Switzerland (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ITU-T Recommendation P.10: Vocabulary for performance and quality of service, Amendment 5 (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ITU-T P.861: Objective quality measurement of telephone-band (300-3400Hz) speech codec (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ITU-T P.862: Perceptual evaluation of speech quality (PESQ) (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang, Y.: Survey of objective video quality measurements. In: International Conference on Intelligent Information Processing, Security and Advanced Communication (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sheikh, H., Bovik, A.: Image information and visual quality. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 15(2), 430–444 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C., Sheikh, H.R., et al.: Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 13(4), 600–612 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zujovic, J., Pappas, T.N., Neuhoff, D.L.: Structural texture similarity metrics for image analysis and retrieval. IEEE Trans. Image Process. Publ. IEEE Sig. Process. Soc. 22(7), 2545–2558 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Janssen, T.J.W.M., Blommaert, F.J.J.: Image quality semantics. J. Imaging Sci. 41(5), 555–560(6) (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ridder, H.D., Endrikhovski, S.: image quality is fun: reflections on fidelity, usefulness and naturalness. In: SID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 986–989 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhang, J., Kuo, C.C.J.: An objective quality of experience (QoE) assessment index for retargeted images. In: Proceedings of ACM International Conference on Multimedia. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Qi, F., Zhao, D.: Quality of experience assessment for stereoscopic image based on the symmetry of binocular visual perception. Intell. Comput. Appl. 6(4), 72–74 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen, W., Fournier, J., Barkowsky, M., Callet, P.L.: Quality of experience model for 3DTV. IS&T/SPIE Electron. Imaging 8288, 2978–2982 (2012). International Society for Optics and PhotonicsGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kazuhisa, Y., Taichi, K., Kimiko, K.: QoE assessment methodologies for 3D video services. NTT Tech. Rev. 11(5), 1–5 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keighrey, C., Flynn, R., Murray, S., Murray, N.: A QoE evaluation of immersive augmented and virtual reality speech & language assessment applications. In: Ninth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hamam, A., Saddik, A.E.: Evaluating the quality of experience of haptic-based applications through mathematical modeling. In: IEEE International Workshop on Haptic Audio Visual Environments and Games, pp. 56–61. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ITU-T: ITU-T Recommendation P.10/G.100 “Amendment 2: New Definitions for Inclusion in Recommendation ITU-T P.10/G.100”. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, Switzerland (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Customer Experience Management: Driving Loyalty and Profitability TMForum, NJ, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stanney, K.M., Kennedy, R.: Simulation sickness. In: Vincenzi, D.A., Wise, J.A., Moulous, M., Hancock, P.A. (eds.) Human Factors in Simulation and Training, pp. 117–128. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schmidt, R.A., Young, D.E:. Transfer of movement control in motor skill learning. Transf. Learn. Contemp. Res. Appl. 47–79 (1987)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saaty, T.L.: Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 1(1), 83–98 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Key Laboratory of Human Factors EngineeringChina Astronaut Research and Training CenterBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations