Experienced quality factors: qualitative evaluation approach to audiovisual quality

Subjective evaluation is used to identify impairment factors of multimedia quality. The final quality is often formulated via quantitative experiments, but this approach has its constraints, as subject's quality interpretations, experiences and quality evaluation criteria are disregarded. To identify these quality evaluation factors, this study examined qualitatively the criteria participants used to evaluate audiovisual video quality. A semi-structured interview was conducted with 60 participants after a subjective audiovisual quality evaluation experiment. The assessment compared several, relatively low audio-video bitrate ratios with five different television contents on mobile device. In the analysis, methodological triangulation (grounded theory, Bayesian networks and correspondence analysis) was applied to approach the qualitative quality. The results showed that the most important evaluation criteria were the factors of visual quality, contents, factors of audio quality, usefulness - followability and audiovisual interaction. Several relations between the quality factors and the similarities between the contents were identified. As a research methodological recommendation, the focus on content and usage related factors need to be further examined to improve the quality evaluation experiments.

[1]  H. McGurk,et al.  Hearing lips and seeing voices , 1976, Nature.

[2]  M. Angela Sasse,et al.  Sharp or smooth?: comparing the effects of quantization vs. frame rate for streamed video , 2004, CHI '04.

[3]  HighWire Press Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London , 1781, The London Medical Journal.

[4]  Itu-T Interactive test methods for audiovisual communications , 1996 .

[5]  Stefan Winkler,et al.  Audiovisual quality evaluation of low-bitrate video , 2005, IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging.

[6]  Hugh Coolican Research methods and statistics in psychology, 2nd ed. , 1994 .

[7]  U. Reiter,et al.  Criteria for the subjective assessment of bimodal perception in interactive AV application systems , 2005, Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Consumer Electronics, 2005. (ISCE 2005)..

[8]  K. Grill-Spector,et al.  The human visual cortex. , 2004, Annual review of neuroscience.

[9]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory , 1998 .

[10]  Henry Tirri,et al.  B-Course: A Web-Based Tool for Bayesian and Causal Data Analysis , 2002, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools.

[11]  N. Hoffart Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory , 2000 .

[12]  Michael H. Coen,et al.  Multimodal Integration A Biological View , 2001, IJCAI.

[13]  Valentin S. Kisimov,et al.  Video Acceptability and Frame Rate , 1995, IEEE Multim..

[14]  E F Evans,et al.  Auditory processing of complex sounds: an overview. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[15]  Toni Virtanen,et al.  Explaining multivariate image quality-Interpretation-Based Quality Approach , 2006 .

[16]  M. Angela Sasse,et al.  Can small be beautiful?: assessing image resolution requirements for mobile TV , 2005, MULTIMEDIA '05.

[17]  J. Gibson The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[18]  W. Schweigert,et al.  Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology , 2023 .

[19]  Jukka Häkkinen,et al.  What do users really perceive: probing the subjective image quality , 2006, Electronic Imaging.

[20]  George Ghinea,et al.  QoS impact on user perception and understanding of multimedia video clips , 1998, MULTIMEDIA '98.

[21]  John G. Beerends,et al.  The Influence of Video Quality on Perceived Audio Quality and Vice Versa , 1999 .

[22]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[23]  Jari Korhonen,et al.  Unacceptability of instantaneous errors in mobile television: from annoying audio to video , 2006, Mobile HCI.

[24]  Caj Södergård,et al.  Mobile television - technology and user experiences: Report on the Mobile-TV project , 2003 .

[25]  Satu Jumisko-Pyykkö,et al.  Evaluation of subjective video quality of mobile devices , 2005, MULTIMEDIA '05.

[26]  Clifford Nass,et al.  The media equation - how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places , 1996 .

[27]  Stephen R. Gulliver,et al.  Pervasive and standalone computing: the perceptual effects of variable multimedia quality , 2004, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[28]  R. Puglia,et al.  Audiovisual quality estimation for mobile streaming services , 2005, 2005 2nd International Symposium on Wireless Communication Systems.

[29]  David Kirsh,et al.  Compensating for low frame rates , 2005, CHI EA '05.

[30]  A Watson,et al.  Multimedia Conferencing via Multicast: Determining the Quality of Service Required by the End User , 1997 .

[31]  Michael Peter Hollier,et al.  Multi-modal Perception , 1999 .

[32]  M. Hannuksela,et al.  ACCEPTANCE OF AUDIOVISUAL QUALITY IN ERRONEOUS TELEVISION SEQUENCES OVER A DVB-H CHANNEL , 2006 .

[33]  M. Angela Sasse,et al.  The good, the bad, and the muffled: the impact of different degradations on Internet speech , 2000, ACM Multimedia.

[34]  D. S. Hands,et al.  A basic multimedia quality model , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Multimedia.

[35]  M. Angela Sasse,et al.  Do Users Always Know What's Good For Them? Utilising Physiological Responses to Assess Media Quality , 2000, BCS HCI.

[36]  Gm Wilson,et al.  Investigating the impact of audio degradations on users: subjective vs objective assessment methods , 2000 .