Study of Rating Scales for Subjective Quality Assessment of High-Definition Video

Huynh-Thu, Quan; Garcia, Marie-Neige; Speranza, Filippo; Corriveau, Philip; Raake, Alexander

doi:10.1109/tbc.2010.2086750

Cited by 152 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Various discrete (e.g., 1 -bad to 5 -excellent) or continuous (e.g., 1 to 100) scales can be used for rating purposes, although when compared against each other they were shown to lead to very similar results as long as a careful test design is conducted and clear information is provided to participants [10].…”

Section: A Subjective Vqa Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A novel methodology for mapping objective video quality metrics to the subjective MOS scale

Moldovan

Ghergulescu

Muntean

2014

2014 IEEE International Symposium on Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-With the rapid growth in video-based services, and as users are becoming increasingly quality-aware, the reliable estimation of video quality has become extremely important. While a multitude of objective Video Quality Assessment (VQA) metrics with various performance and complexity have been proposed, the nonlinearity of video quality and the lack of clear interpretations of the metrics make difficult to understand how the objective metric values reflect the video quality as perceived subjectively in terms of Mean Opinion Scores (MOS). This paper proposes and evaluates a methodology for mapping objective VQA metric values to subjective MOS scores based on publicly available VQA databases. Three different databases were used for comparing the performance of various objective metrics and evaluating the proposed methodology.Index Terms-Video quality assessment (VQA), mean opinion score (MOS), subjective methods, objective metrics, video quality mapping, performance evaluation, public video quality databases.

show abstract

Section: A Subjective Vqa Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A novel methodology for mapping objective video quality metrics to the subjective MOS scale

Moldovan

Ghergulescu

Muntean

2014

2014 IEEE International Symposium on Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fig. 4 Typical trail structure for an SS methodology [16], during which sequences are presented one at a time and immediately evaluated after watching It is clear that SS methodologies correspond more with the way people watch video on their computer or on their television [10], [31]. This is also the case for the video streamed to the interpreter booths.…”

Section: Audiovisual Subjective Assessment Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the importance of audio/video synchronization for simultaneous translation of video sequences

Staelens

Meulenaere²,

Bleumers³

et al. 2012

Multimedia Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lip synchronization is considered a key parameter during interactive communication. In the case of video conferencing and television broadcasting, the differential delay between audio and video should remain below certain thresholds, as recommended by several standardization bodies. However, further research has also shown that these thresholds can be relaxed, depending on the targeted application and use case. In this article, we investigate the influence of lip sync on the ability to perform real-time language interpretation during video conferencing. Furthermore, we are also interested in determining proper lip sync visibility thresholds applicable to this use case. Therefore, we conducted a subjective experiment using expert interpreters, which were required to perform a simultaneous translation, and using non-experts. Our results show that significant differences are obtained when conducting subjective experiments with expert interpreters. As interpreters are primarily focused on performing the si-N. Staelens · N. Vercammen · B. Vermeulen · P. Demeester

show abstract

“…In QoE assessment, different rating scales are commonly used to assess quality, such as 5-point, 7-point, 11-point or continuous scales, which have different performance in terms of discriminatory power and reliability, and also differ in assessment time and ease of use by the subjects. As examples, Tominaga et al [43] discuss different rating scales for mobile video, Huynh-Thu et al [19] for high-definition video, and Möller [29] for speech quality. Moreover, the used QoE models may operate on different scales.…”

Section: Desirable Properties Of a Qoe Fairness Indexmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new QoE fairness index for QoE management

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The user-centric management of networks and services focuses on the Quality of Experience (QoE) as perceived by the end user. In general, the goal is to maximize (or at least ensure an acceptable) QoE, while ensuring fairness among users, e.g., in terms of resource allocation and scheduling in shared systems. A problem arising in this context is that the notions of fairness commonly applied in the QoS domain do not translate well to the QoE domain. We have recently proposed a QoE fairness index F, which solves these issues. In this paper, we provide a detailed rationale for it, along with a thorough comparison of the proposed index and its properties against the most widely used QoS fairness indices, showing its advantages. We furthermore explore the potential uses of the index, in the context of QoE management and describe future research lines on this topic.

show abstract

Study of Rating Scales for Subjective Quality Assessment of High-Definition Video

Cited by 152 publications

References 22 publications

A novel methodology for mapping objective video quality metrics to the subjective MOS scale

A novel methodology for mapping objective video quality metrics to the subjective MOS scale

Assessing the importance of audio/video synchronization for simultaneous translation of video sequences

A new QoE fairness index for QoE management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About