Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality of Experience and Interactivity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Quality of Experience

Part of the book series: T-Labs Series in Telecommunication Services ((TLABS))

Abstract

This chapter discusses the relation between interactivity and QoE. In this context, a definition of interactivity comprising human-to-human interaction as well as human-to-machine interaction is presented, and a description of a possible instrumentation is given. In terms of quality formation, a mediation layer between quality influence factors and perceived quality features is introduced that allows the inclusion of interactivity-related perception in the quality formation process. A discussion of commonalities and differences between interaction with a system and interaction with one or several other persons via a system identifies the open challenges for reliable and successful measurement of interactivity related aspects and the identification of relationships between these interaction measures and QoE.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Also other distortions in the communication channel such as e.g. echo or noise to impact the interaction behaviour of interactants. However, throughout this chapter we focus on transmission delay as most influential impairment for human mediated communication.

  2. 2.

    Due to space limitations we can only discuss interactivity for certain interactive services within this chapter, and hereby want to point out that our definitions of interactivity as well as the contribution of interactivity to the overall quality formation process are also valid for other interactive services such as sensory experiences and interactive gaming, as described in Chaps. 24 and 25, respectively.

  3. 3.

    Human interaction scholars might argue that restricting interaction to request-response patterns is no longer an analysis of true interaction but rather quasi interaction (cf. [5–7]). However, as we target a broad range of services in addition to H2H interaction we are confident that this restriction is adequate for identifying the influence of interactivity on QoE for all of these services.

  4. 4.

    This model is based on observations of H2H-communication interactions reported in [8–10] where users were interrupting the other person frequently, and observations of H2M interaction, where similarly users, while web-browsing [11, 12], were navigating further on a web page through clicking on a respective link before the web page was fully loaded. This lower bound of sufficient information (for issuing a subsequent request) might be defined in two ways: (1) with a relative or absolute amount of information (e.g. 70 % of rendered screen area, or fully rendered screen) (2) based on the considerations from [2] where the bound is reached after the entropy of user (A) gets smaller then the entropy of the response of user (B) in order to maximize the amount on information exchanged.

  5. 5.

    Thereby running several times through the respective perception and judgement processes.

  6. 6.

    Note that the quality influence factors in the quality formation process described in Chap. 2 are considered in the lower left box that feeds in the sensory processing cirle in Fig. 2.3.

  7. 7.

    including all system parts such as e.g. the transmission path, the interface, amount of information stored etc.

References

  1. Reichl P, Balinova M, Hammer F (2005) Measuring non-spontaneous interactivity—an opera-related case study. In: Proceedings of 5th open workshop of musicnetwork—integration of music in multimedia applications, Vienna, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  2. Reichl P (2007) How to define conversational interactivity: a game-theoretic approach and its application in telecommunications. J Inf Technol Control (JITC) 3(No. 3–4/2006):18–24

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kitawaki N, Itoh K (1991) Pure delay effects on speech quality in telecommunications. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 9(4):586–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hammer F, Reichl P, Raake A (2005) The well-tempered conversation: interactivity, delay and perceptual VoIP quality. In: 2005 IEEE international conference on communications (ICC 2005), vol 1, pp 244–249. doi:10.1109/ICC.2005.1494355

  5. Stromer-Galley J (2004) Interactivity-as-product and interactivity-as-process. Inf Soc 20(5):391–394. doi:10.1080/01972240490508081. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/utis/2004/00000020/00000005/art00008

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rafaeli S (1998) Interactivity: from new media to communication. In: Hawkins RP, Wiemann JM, Pingree S (eds) Advancing communication science: merging mass and interpersonal processes. Sage Publications, Beverley Hills, pp 110–135

    Google Scholar 

  7. McMillan S (2005) Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: users, documents and systems. Handbook of new media 2:205–229

    Google Scholar 

  8. Egger S, Schatz R, Scherer S (2010) It takes two to tango—assessing the impact of delay on conversational interactivity on perceived speech quality. In: Interspeech, pp 1321–1324

    Google Scholar 

  9. Egger S, Schatz R, Schoenenberg K, Raake A, Kubin G (2012) Same but different?—Using speech signal features for comparing conversational VoIP quality studies. In: IEEE ICC 2012—communication QoS, reliability and modeling symposium (ICC’12 CQRM). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schoenenberg K, Raake A, Egger S, Schatz R (2012) On interaction behaviour in telephone conversations under transmission delay. Speech Communication. Submitted June 2012

    Google Scholar 

  11. Egger S, Reichl P, Hoßfeld T, Schatz R (2012) ‘Time is Bandwidth’? Narrowing the gap between subjective time perception and quality of experience. In: IEEE ICC 2012-communication QoS, reliability and modeling symposium (ICC’12 CQRM). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  12. Egger S, Schatz R, Hoßfeld T, Müllner W (2013) ITU-T SG 12 contribution C-033: perceptual events in a page view cycle outcome from the interim meeting in Berlin 11/2012. Tech. rep, FTW, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fiedler M (2004) Deliverable D.WP.JRA.6.1.1: state of the art with regards to user perceived quality of service and quality feedback. Tech. rep., EuroNGI (2004). http://eurongi.enst.fr

  14. Egger S, Hoßfeld T, Schatz R, Fiedler M (2012) Tutorial: waiting times in quality of experience for web based services. In: IEEE QoMEX 2012, Yara Valley, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  15. ITU-T Rec. P.59: artificial conversational speech. International Telecommunication Union, CH-Geneva (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Brady PT (1968) A statistical analysis of on-off patterns in 16 conversations. Bell Syst Tech J 47(1):73–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hammer F (2006) Quality aspects of packet-based interactive speech communication. Ph.D. thesis, Signal processing and speech communication laboratory, Faculty of Electrical and Information Engineering, University of Technology Graz, Graz, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jekosch U (2005) Voice and speech quality perception: assessment and evaluation. Signals and communication technology. Springer, Berlin. http://books.google.at/books?id=Ef3lHiSzq1QC

  19. Möller S, Le Callet P, Perkis A (eds) (2012) Qualinet white paper on definitions of quality of experience—output version of the Dagstuhl seminar 12181: European network on quality of experience in multimedia systems and services (COST Action IC 1003), Lausanne, 1.1 edn

    Google Scholar 

  20. Raake A (2006) Speech quality of VoIP: assessment and prediction. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Möller S, Engelbrecht KP, Kühnel C, Wechsung I, Weiss B (2009) Evaluation of multimodal interfaces for ambient intelligence. Human-Centric Interfaces Ambient Intell 347–370

    Google Scholar 

  22. Möller S, Engelbrecht KP, Kuhnel C, Wechsung I, Weiss B (2009) A taxonomy of quality of service and quality of experience of multimodal human-machine interaction. In: International workshop on quality of multimedia experience, 2009. QoMEX 2009, pp 7–12

    Google Scholar 

  23. Möller S (2010) Quality engineering—Qualität kommunikationstechnischer Systeme. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  24. Möller S (2000) Assessment and prediction of speech quality in telecommunications, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  25. Möller S, Berger J, Raake A, Wältermann M, Weiss B (2011) A new dimension-based framework model for the quality of speech communication services. In: 2011 Third international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), pp 107–112. doi:10.1109/QoMEX.2011.6065686

  26. Yamagishi K, Hayashi T (2005) Analysis of psychological factors for quality assessment of interactive multimodal service, pp 130–138. doi:10.1117/12.586679

  27. Raake A, Katrin H, Skowronek J, Egger S (2013) Predicting speech quality based on interactivity and delay. In: Interspeech 2013 (accepted)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hoeldtke K, Raake A (2011) Conversation analysis of multi-party conferencing and its relation to perceived quality. In: 2011 IEEE international conference on communications (ICC), pp 1–5. doi:10.1109/icc.2011.5963021

  29. Skowronek J, Raake A (2011) Investigating the effect of number of interlocutors on the quality of experience for multi-party audio conferencing. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual conference of the international speech communication association (Interspeech), pp 829–832

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Telecommunications Research Center Vienna (FTW), Vienna, Austria

    Sebastian Egger

  2. University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Peter Reichl

  3. Université Européenne de Bretagne/Télécom Bretagne Rennes,  2, rue de la Châtaigneraie F-35576, Cesson-Sevigne, France

    Peter Reichl

  4. Assessment of IP-based Applications, Telekom Innovation Labs, TU Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Katrin Schoenenberg

Authors
  1. Sebastian Egger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Reichl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katrin Schoenenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Egger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Quality and Usability Lab Telekom Innovation Laboratories, TU Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Sebastian Möller

  2. Assessment of IP-based Applications Telekom Innovation Laboratories, TU Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Alexander Raake

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Egger, S., Reichl, P., Schoenenberg, K. (2014). Quality of Experience and Interactivity. In: Möller, S., Raake, A. (eds) Quality of Experience. T-Labs Series in Telecommunication Services. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02681-7_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02681-7_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02680-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02681-7

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation