多模态质量评价的两种混合方法:开放式质量分析与常规质量分析的比较

K. Kunze, D. Strohmeier, Satu Jumisko-Pyykkö
{"title":"多模态质量评价的两种混合方法:开放式质量分析与常规质量分析的比较","authors":"K. Kunze, D. Strohmeier, Satu Jumisko-Pyykkö","doi":"10.1109/QoMEX.2011.6065691","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To guide the practitioner's work in choosing between assessment methods, defined criteria to compare their benefits, costs, and limitations are needed. The goal of this paper is two-fold. Firstly, we develop an extensive comparison model to guide between-method comparisons based on a literature review. The model is composed of four main criteria, called economy, excellence, implementation and assessment with a total of 24 sub-criteria. Secondly, we conduct a comparison study between two mixed methods in which a subset of criteria of the model is examined. We compare Open Profiling of Quality utilizing individuals' own vocabulary and Conventional Profiling utilizing fixed vocabulary in their descriptive evaluation. The study is conducted with naïve participants with varying 3D video qualities on a mobile device. The results compare both methods on a subset of comparison criteria and show that operationalization of the developed comparison model can provide a tool for holistic methods comparison.","PeriodicalId":6441,"journal":{"name":"2011 Third International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience","volume":"7 1","pages":"137-142"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of two mixed methods approaches for multimodal quality evaluations: Open Profiling of Quality and Conventional Profiling\",\"authors\":\"K. Kunze, D. Strohmeier, Satu Jumisko-Pyykkö\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/QoMEX.2011.6065691\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To guide the practitioner's work in choosing between assessment methods, defined criteria to compare their benefits, costs, and limitations are needed. The goal of this paper is two-fold. Firstly, we develop an extensive comparison model to guide between-method comparisons based on a literature review. The model is composed of four main criteria, called economy, excellence, implementation and assessment with a total of 24 sub-criteria. Secondly, we conduct a comparison study between two mixed methods in which a subset of criteria of the model is examined. We compare Open Profiling of Quality utilizing individuals' own vocabulary and Conventional Profiling utilizing fixed vocabulary in their descriptive evaluation. The study is conducted with naïve participants with varying 3D video qualities on a mobile device. The results compare both methods on a subset of comparison criteria and show that operationalization of the developed comparison model can provide a tool for holistic methods comparison.\",\"PeriodicalId\":6441,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2011 Third International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"137-142\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-11-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2011 Third International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/QoMEX.2011.6065691\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2011 Third International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/QoMEX.2011.6065691","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

为了指导从业者在评估方法之间进行选择,需要定义标准来比较它们的收益、成本和局限性。本文的目的有两个。首先,我们在文献综述的基础上建立了一个广泛的比较模型来指导方法间的比较。该模型由经济、卓越、实施和评估四个主要标准组成,共有24个子标准。其次,我们对两种混合方法进行了比较研究,其中对模型的标准子集进行了检查。我们比较了使用个人自己词汇的开放式质量分析和使用固定词汇的常规质量分析在描述性评价中的作用。这项研究是通过naïve参与者在移动设备上观看不同质量的3D视频进行的。结果在一个比较标准的子集上对两种方法进行了比较,并表明所开发的比较模型的可操作性可以为整体方法比较提供工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of two mixed methods approaches for multimodal quality evaluations: Open Profiling of Quality and Conventional Profiling
To guide the practitioner's work in choosing between assessment methods, defined criteria to compare their benefits, costs, and limitations are needed. The goal of this paper is two-fold. Firstly, we develop an extensive comparison model to guide between-method comparisons based on a literature review. The model is composed of four main criteria, called economy, excellence, implementation and assessment with a total of 24 sub-criteria. Secondly, we conduct a comparison study between two mixed methods in which a subset of criteria of the model is examined. We compare Open Profiling of Quality utilizing individuals' own vocabulary and Conventional Profiling utilizing fixed vocabulary in their descriptive evaluation. The study is conducted with naïve participants with varying 3D video qualities on a mobile device. The results compare both methods on a subset of comparison criteria and show that operationalization of the developed comparison model can provide a tool for holistic methods comparison.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Web Browsing Audio Transmission Evoking Emotions and Evaluating Emotional Impact Quality of Experience Versus User Experience Crowdsourcing in QoE Evaluation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1