skip to main content
10.1145/3573381.3597235acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesimxConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Behavior as a Function of Video Quality in an Ecologically Valid Experiment

Published:29 August 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Most user studies in the QoE multimedia domain are done by asking users about quality. This approach has advantages: it obtains many answers and reduces variance by repeated measurements. However, the results obtained in this context may be different from those obtained in the real application, since quality is not asked about this often in everyday life. It is more natural is to focus on user behavior. The proposed PhD focuses on a method for performing experiments based on observations of a participant’s behavior. We address two main challenges that exist in any new experiment design: how to calculate the interval validity of the proposed method and how to analyze the obtained data. The data analysis we propose is based on psychometric functions. We propose two different experiments, one of which is already ongoing.

References

  1. Donald T Campbell and Julian C Stanley. 1963. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Thomas D Cook, Donald Thomas Campbell, and Arles Day. 1979. Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Vol. 351. Houghton Mifflin Boston.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. L. Danon, A. Diaz-Guilera, J. Duch, and A. Arenas. 2005. Comparing community structure identification. J. Stat. Mech.-Theory Exp. (2005), P09008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Lorin Dole and Wendy Ju. 2019. Face and Ecological Validity in Simulations: Lessons from Search-and-Rescue HRI. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300681Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Håkan Fischer, Tomas Furmark, Gustav Wik, and Mats Fredrikson. 2000. Brain representation of habituation to repeated complex visual stimulation studied with PET. Neuroreport 11, 1 (2000), 123–126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. ITU-T. 1998. Subjective assessment of video quality using Expert Viewing Protocol. Technical Report BT.710. Geneva.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. ITU-T. 1998. Subjective audiovisual quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. Recommendation P.911. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. ITU-T. 2007. Methodology for the subjective assessment of video quality in multimedia applications. Technical Report BT.1788. Geneva.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. ITU-T. 2016. Subjective assessment methods for 3D video quality. Recommendation P.915. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. ITU-T. 2017. Subjective assessment of video quality using Expert Viewing Protocol. Technical Report BT.2095. Geneva.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. ITU-T. 2017. Subjective quality evaluation of audio and audiovisual multiparty telemeetings. Technical Report P.1301. Geneva.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. ITU-T. 2019. Dimension-based subjective quality evaluation for video content. Technical Report P.918. Geneva.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. ITU-T. 2019. Methodologies for the subjective assessment of the quality of television images. Technical Report BT.500. Geneva.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. ITU-T. 2020. Subjective test methodologies for 360º video on head-mounted displays. Technical Report P.919. Geneva.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. ITU-T. 2020. Subjective test methodology for assessing impact of initial loading delay on quality of experience. Technical Report P.917. Geneva.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. ITU-T. 2021. Methods for the subjective assessment of video quality, audio quality and audiovisual quality of Internet video and distribution quality television in any environment. Recommendation P.913. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. ITU-T. 2022. Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. Recommendation P.910. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. John F Kihlstrom. 2021. Ecological validity and “ecological validity”. Perspectives on Psychological Science 16, 2 (2021), 466–471.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. F.A.A. Kingdom. 2012. Psychophysics. In Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Second Edition) (second edition ed.), V.S. Ramachandran (Ed.). Academic Press, San Diego, 234–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-375000-6.00296-2Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Michael Langer. 2018. COMP 546 - Computational Perception lecture notes. https://www.cim.mcgill.ca/ langer/546/13-psychophysics-notes.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Letitia Lew, Truc Nguyen, Solomon Messing, and Sean Westwood. 2011. Of course I wouldn’t do that in real life: advancing the arguments for increasing realism in HCI experiments. In CHI’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 419–428.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Zhi Li, Anne Aaron, Ioannis Katsavounidis, Anush Moorthy, and Megha Manohara. 2016. Toward A Practical Perceptual Video Quality Metric. https://netflixtechblog.com/toward-a-practical-perceptual-video-quality-metric-653f208b9652Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Hyunwoo Nam, Kyung-Hwa Kim, and Henning Schulzrinne. 2016. QoE matters more than QoS: Why people stop watching cat videos. In IEEE INFOCOM 2016 - The 35th Annual IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/INFOCOM.2016.7524426Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Cheryl Olman (Ed.). 2022. Introduction to Sensation and Perception. University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing, Chapter Basics: neuroscience and psychophysics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Marta Orduna, César Díaz, Lara Muñoz, Pablo Pérez, Ignacio Benito, and Narciso García. 2019. Video multimethod assessment fusion (VMAF) on 360VR contents. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics 66, 1 (2019), 22–31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. 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. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02681-7_4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. 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). 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/QoMEX48832.2020.9123148Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. 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). 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/QoMEX.2016.7498926Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Colin Robson and Kieran McCartan. 2016. Real world research. Wiley Global Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Srisakul Thakolsri, Wolfgang Kellerer, and Eckehard Steinbach. 2011. QoE-Based Cross-Layer Optimization of Wireless Video with Unperceivable Temporal Video Quality Fluctuation. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC). 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/icc.2011.5963296Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Khalil ur Rehman Laghari, Rishabh Gupta, Jan-Niklas Antons, Robert Schleicher, Sebastian Möller, and Tiago H. Falk. 2013. Objective characterization of human behavioural characteristics for QoE assessment: A pilot study on the use of electroencephalography features. In 2013 IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps). 1168–1173. https://doi.org/10.1109/GLOCOMW.2013.6825151Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Stuart A. Wallis, Daniel H. Baker, Tim S. Meese, and Mark A. Georgeson. 2013. The slope of the psychometric function and non-stationarity of thresholds in spatiotemporal contrast vision. Vision Research 76 (2013), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2012.09.019Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Nikolas Wehner, Michael Seufert, Sebastian Egger-Lampl, Bruno Gardlo, Pedro Casas, and Raimund Schatz. 2020. Scoring High: Analysis and Prediction of Viewer Behavior and Engagement in the Context of 2018 FIFA WC Live Streaming. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (Seattle, WA, USA) (MM ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 807–815. https://doi.org/10.1145/3394171.3414016Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Di Yuan, Tiesong Zhao, Yiwen Xu, Hong Xue, and Liqun Lin. 2019. Visual JND: A Perceptual Measurement in Video Coding. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 29014–29022. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2901342Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Jingwen Zhu and Patrick Le Callet. 2022. Just Noticeable Difference (JND) and Satisfied User Ratio (SUR) Prediction for Compressed Video: Research Proposal. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (Athlone, Ireland) (MMSys ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 393–397. https://doi.org/10.1145/3524273.3533933Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Behavior as a Function of Video Quality in an Ecologically Valid Experiment

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Article Metrics

              • Downloads (Last 12 months)48
              • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

              Other Metrics

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader

            HTML Format

            View this article in HTML Format .

            View HTML Format