Factors Influencing Quality of Experience

  • Ulrich Reiter
  • Kjell Brunnström
  • Katrien De Moor
  • Mohamed-Chaker Larabi
  • Manuela Pereira
  • Antonio Pinheiro
  • Junyong You
  • Andrej Zgank

Abstract

In this chapter different factors that may influence Quality of Experience (QoE) in the context of media consumption, networked services, and other electronic communication services and applications, are discussed. QoE can be subject to a range of complex and strongly interrelated factors, falling into three categories: human, system and context influence factors (IFs). With respect to Human IFs, we discuss variant and stable factors that may potentially bear an influence on QoE, either for low-level (bottom-up) or higher-level (top-down) cognitive processing. System IFs are classified into four distinct categories, namely content-, media-, network- and device-related IFs. Finally, the broad category of possible Context IFs is decomposed into factors linked to the physical, temporal, social, economic, task and technical information context. The overview given here illustrates the complexity of QoE and the broad range of aspects that potentially have a major influence on it.

References

  1. 1.
    Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience — Output version of the Dagstuhl seminar 12181 (2012) In: Le Callet P, Möller S, Perkis A (eds) European network on quality of experience in multimedia systems and services (COST Action IC 1003), Version 1.1, LausanneGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Geerts D, De Moor K, Ketykó I, Jacobs A, Van den Bergh J, Joseph W, Martens L, De Marez L (2010) Linking an integrated framework with appropriate methods for measuring QoE. In: 2010 second international workshop on quality of multimedia experience, pp 158–163Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wechsung I, Engelbrecht K-P, Kühnel C, Möller S, Weiss B (2012) Measuring the quality of service and quality of experience of multimodal human-machine interaction. J Multimodal User Interfaces 6(1–2):73–85. doi:10.1007/s12193-011-0088-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jumisko-Pyykkö S (2011) User-centered quality of experience and its evaluation methods for mobile television. Doctoral thesis, Tampere University of Technology, TampereGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Quintero MR, Raake A (2011) Towards assigning value to multimedia QoE. In: Third international, workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), pp 1–6Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Laghari KUR, Crespi N, Connelly K (2012) Toward total quality of experience: a QoE model in a communication ecosystem. Commun Mag IEEE 50(4):58–65Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wechsung I, Schulz M, Engelbrecht K-P, Niemann J, Möller S (2011) All users are (Not) equal-the influence of user characteristics on perceived quality, modality choice and performance. In: Delgado RL-C, Kobayashi T (eds) Proceedings of the paralinguistic information and its integration in spoken dialogue systems workshop. Springer, New York, pp 175–186Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sackl A, Masuch K, Egger S, Schatz R (2012) Wireless vs. wireline shootout: how user expectations influence quality of experience. In: Fourth international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), 5–7 July 2012, pp 148–149Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burbeck CA, Kelly DH (1980) Spatiotemporal characteristics of visual mechanisms: excitatory-inhibitory model. JOSA 70(9):1121–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    You J, Xing L, Perkis A, Ebrahimi T (2012) Visual contrast sensitivity guided video quality assessment. In: 2012 IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo (ICME). IEEE, pp 824–829Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greenberg S, Ainsworth WA (2004) Speech processing in the auditory system: an overview. In: Speech processing in the auditory system. Springer, pp 1–62Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldstein EB (2009) Sensation and perception, 8th edn. Cengage Learning, WadsworthGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sackl A, Egger S, Zwickl P, Reichl P (2012) The QoE alchemy: turning quality into money. Experiences with a refined methodology for the evaluation of willingness-to-pay for service quality. In: Fourth international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), 5–7 July 2012, pp 170–175Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reiter U (2010) Perceived quality in game audio. In: Grimshaw M (ed) Game sound technology and player interaction: concepts and developments. IGI Global, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rokeach M (1973) The nature of human values. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hassenzahl M (2008) User experience (UX): towards an experiential perspective on product quality. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference of the association francophone d’interaction homme-machine, ACM Press, New York, pp 11–15Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol 25(1):54–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scherer KR (2005) What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Soc Sci Inf 44(4):695–729Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Desmet PMA (2002) Designing emotions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, TU Delft, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Robert S, John J, Hogan B (1997) Handbook of personality psychology. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ghinea G, Chen SY (2003) The impact of cognitive styles on perceptual distributed multimedia quality. Br J Educ Technol 34(4):393–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rainer B, Waltl M, Cheng E, Shujau M, Timmerer C, Davis S, Burnett I, Ritz C, Hellwagner H (2012) Investigating the impact of sensory effects on the quality of experience and emotional response in web videos. In: Fourth international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX). IEEE, pp 278–283Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Arndt S, Antons J-N, Schleicher R, Möller S, Curio G (2012) Perception of low-quality videos analyzed by means of electroencephalography. In: 2012 fourth international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX). IEEE, pp 284–289Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reiter U, De Moor K (2012) Content categorization based on implicit and explicit user feedback: combining self-reports with EEG emotional state analysis. In: 2012 fourth international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX). IEEE, pp 266–271Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Frijda NH (1994) Varieties of affect: emotions and episodes, moods, and sentiments. In: Ekman P, Davidson R (eds) The nature of emotions: fundamental questions. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 59–67Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Forgas JP, Bower GH (1987) Mood effects on person-perception judgments. J Pers Soc Psychol 53(1):53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bless H, Clore GL, Schwarz N, Golisano V, Rabe C, Wölk M (1996) Mood and the use of scripts: does a happy mood really lead to mindlessness? J Pers Soc Psychol 71(4):665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Angrilli A, Cherubini P, Pavese A, Manfredini S (1997) The influence of affective factors on time perception. Percept Psychophysics 59(6):972–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Higgs B, Polonsky MJ, Hollick M (2005) Measuring expectations: forecast vs. ideal expectations. Does it really matter? J Retail Consum Serv 12(1):49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sackl A et al (2013) Evaluating the impact of expectations on end-user quality perception. PQS workshop 2013, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Staelens N, Van den Broeck W, Pitrey Y, Vermeulen B, Demeester P (2012) Lessons learned during real-life QoE assessment. In: 10th European conference on interactive TV and video (Euro ITV-2012). Ghent University, Department of information technology, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rumsey F, Zielinski S, Kassier R, Bech S (2005) Relationships between experienced listener ratings of multichannel audio quality and naive listener preferences. J Acoust Soc Am 117(6):3832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Speranza F, Poulin F, Renaud R, Caron M, Dupras J (2010) Objective and subjective quality assessment with experts and non-experts viewers. In: Proceedings of the second international workshop on quality of multimedia experience, Trondheim, Norway, pp 46–51Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Quintero MR, Raake A (2012) Is taking into account the subjects degree of knowledge and expertise enough when rating quality? In: 2012 fourth international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), IEEE, pp 194–199Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    De Moor K (2012) Are engineers from Mars and users from Venus? Bridging gaps in quality of experience research: reflections on and experiences from an interdisciplinary journey. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ghent UniversityGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Radun J, Leisti T, Häkkinen JP, Ojanen HJ, Olives J, Vuori T, Nyman GS (2008) Content and quality: interpretation-based estimation of image quality. ACM Trans Appl Percept 4(4):21:1–21:15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chen W, Fournier J, Barkowsky M, Le Callet P (2013) New stereoscopic video shooting rule based on stereoscopic distortion parameters and comfortable viewing zone. In: Stereoscopic displays and applications XXII, proceedings of SPIE-IS&T electronic imaging, vol: SPIE, vol. 7863Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zinner T, Hohlfeld O, Abboud O, Hoßfeld T (2010) Impact of frame rate and resolution on objective QoE metrics. In: Proceedings of second international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jammeh E, Mkwawa I, Khan A, Goudarzi M, Sun L, Ifeachor E (2012) Quality of experience (QoE) driven adaptation scheme for voice/video over IP. Telecommun Syst 49(1):99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    ITU BT.1359: Relative timing of sound and vision for broadcastingGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nahrstedt K, Steinmetz R (1995) Resource management in networked multimedia systems. IEEE Comput 1995:52–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fiedler M, Hoßfeld T, Tran-Gia P (2010) A generic quantitative relationship between quality of experience and quality of service. Netw IEEE 24(2):36–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Brunnström K, Stålenbring D, Pettersson M, Gustafsson J (2010) The impact of transmission errors on progressive 720 lines HDTV coded with H.264. In: Rogowitz B, Pappas TN (eds) Proceedings of SPIE-IS&T human vision and electronic imaging XV, vol 7527, paper 56Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pratsolis D, Tsourakis N, Digalakis V (2007) Degradation of speech recognition performance over lossy data networks. In: Wmunep’07: Proceedings of the third ACM workshop on wireless multimedia networking and performance modeling, pp 88–91Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sackl A, Seufert M, Hoßfeld T (2013) Asking costs little? The impact of tasks in video QoE studies on user behavior and user ratings. In: PQS workshop 2013. Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tavakoli S, Gutiérrez J, García N (2013) Quality assessment of adaptive 3D video streaming. In: Three-dimensional image processing (3DIP) and applications. Burlingame, California, USA. 03 Feb 2013, vol Proc. SPIE 8650Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Klompenhouwer MA (2006) Flat panel display signal processing: analysis and algorithms for improved static and dynamic resolution. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kaptein R, Kuijsters A, Lambooij M, IJsselsteijn WA, Heynderickx I (2008) Performance evaluation of 3D-TV systems. In: Proceedings of SPIE Image quality and system performance V, vol SPIE 6808, p 680819Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lambooij M, IJsselsteijn W, Heynderickx I (2009) Visual discomfort and visual fatigue of stereoscopic displays: a review. J Imaging Sci Technol 53(3):030201-1–030201-14Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wang K, Barkowsky M, Brunnström K, Sjöström M, Cousseau R, Le Callet P (2012) Perceived 3D TV transmission quality assessment: multi-laboratory results using absolute category rating on quality of experience scale. IEEE Trans Broadcast 58(4):544–557Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Woods AJ, Docherty T, Koch R (1993) Image distortions in stereoscopic video systems. In: Proceedings of SPIE volume 1915 stereoscopic displays and applications IV, pp 36–48Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Patterson R (2009) Review paper: human factors of stereo displays: an update. J Soc Inf Display 17(12):987–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gartner: Gartner says worldwide mobile phone sales declined 1.7 percent in 2012Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Su J-H, Yeh H-H, Yu PS, Tseng VS (2010) Music recommendation using content and context information mining. Intell Syst IEEE 25(1):16–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Song S, Moustafa H, Afifi H (2012) Advanced IPTV services personalization through context-aware content recommendation. IEEE Trans Multimedia 14(6):1528–1537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Adomavicius G, Tuzhilin E (2005) Toward the next generation of recommender systems: a survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 17(6):734–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Chen Y-C, Huang H-C, Huang Y-M (2009) Community-based program recommendation for the next generation electronic program guide. IEEE Trans Consum Electron 55(2):707–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Qi X, Davison BD (2009) Web page classification: features and algorithms. ACM Comput Surv 41:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Yu Z, Zhou X, Yu Z, Zhang D, Chin C-Y (2006) An OSGi-based infrastructure for context-aware multimedia services. Commun Mag IEEE 44(10):136–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Jumisko-Pyykkö S, Vainio T (2010) Framing the context of Use for mobile HCI. Review paper about mobile contexts of use between 2000–2007. Int J Mob Hum Comput Interact (IJMHCI) 3(4):1–28Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bradley NA, Dunlop MD (2005) Toward a multidisciplinary model of context to support context-aware computing. Hum Comput Interact 20(4):403–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Roto V (2006) Web browsing on mobile phones: characteristics of user experience. Doctoral dissertation, TKK Dissertations 49, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila K, Ruuska S (2000) Designing mobile phones and communicators for consumers’ needs at nokia. In: Bergman E (ed) Information appliances and beyond: interaction design for consumer products, Morgan Kaufmann, Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wigelius H, Väätäjä H (2009) Dimensions of context affecting user experience in mobile work. In: Proceedings of INTERACT 2009, Aug 2009, Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Korhonen H, Arrasvuori J, Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila K (2010) Analysing user experience of personal mobile products through contextual factors. In: International conference on mobile and ubiquitous multimedia. Limassol, CyprusGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Rahman MA, El-Saddik A, Gueaieb W (2011) Augmenting context awareness by combining body sensor networks and social networks. IEEE Trans Instrum Measur 60(2):345–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Möller S, Engelbrecht K-P, Kühnel 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, pp 7,12, 29–31Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Zhou L, Xiong N, Shu L, Vasilakos A, Yeo S-S (2010) Context-aware middleware for multimedia services in heterogeneous networks. Intell Syst IEEE 25(2):40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    You S, Neumann U (2005) V-sentinel: a novel framework for situational awareness and surveillance. Proc SPIE 5778(713):713–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wang Y, Krum DM, Coelho EM, Bowman DA (2007) Contextualized videos: combining videos, with environment models to support situational understanding. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 13(6):1568–1575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Borowiak A, Reiter U, Svensson UP (2013) Audio quality requirements and comparison of multimodal vs. unimodal perception of impairments for long duration content. J Sig Process Syst, May 2013. doi:10.1007/s11265-013-0777-8
  72. 72.
    Hong J, Suh E-H, Kim J, Kim SY (2009) Context-aware system for proactive personalized service based on context history. Expert Syst Appl 36(4):7448–7457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Reynolds G, Barry D, Burker T, Coyle E (2008) Interacting with large music collections: towards the use of environmental metadata. In: Proceedings of IEEE Int’l conference on multimedia and expo, pp 989–992Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Cardone G, Corradi A, Foschini L, Montanari R (2012) Socio-technical awareness to support recommendation and efficient delivery of IMS-enabled mobile services. Commun Mag IEEE 50(6):82–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Chakareski J, Frossard P (2010) Context-adaptive information flow allocation and media delivery in online social networks. IEEE J Sel Top Sig Process 4(4):732–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Reiter U, Weitzel M, Cao S (2007) Influence of interaction on perceived quality in audio visual applications: subjective assessment with n-back working memory task. In: Proceedings of AES 30th international conference. Saariselkä, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Reiter U, Weitzel M (2007) Influence of interaction on perceived quality in audio visual applications: subjective assessment with n-back working memory task, II. In: AES 122nd convention. Vienna, Austria. Preprint 7046Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Reiter U, Weitzel M (2007) Influence of interaction on perceived quality in audiovisual applications: evaluation of cross-modal influence. In: Proceedings of 13th international conference on auditory displays (ICAD). Montreal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Pashler HE (1999) The psychology of attention. 1st paperback edition, The MIT Press. Cambridge, MA, USA. ISBN 0-262-66156-XGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulrich Reiter
    • 1
  • Kjell Brunnström
    • 2
  • Katrien De Moor
    • 3
    • 4
  • Mohamed-Chaker Larabi
    • 5
  • Manuela Pereira
    • 6
  • Antonio Pinheiro
    • 6
  • Junyong You
    • 7
  • Andrej Zgank
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of Electronics and TelecommunicationsNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Visual Media QualityAcreo Swedish ICT AB and Mid Sweden UniversityStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Department of TelematicsNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  4. 4.iMinds-MICTGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  5. 5.Université de PoitiersPoitiersFrance
  6. 6.University of Beira InteriorCovilhãPortugal
  7. 7.Christian Michelsen Research ASBergenNorway
  8. 8.University of MariborMariborSlovenia

Personalised recommendations