Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

Mimicking Individual Media Quality Perception with Neural Network based Artificial Observers

Published: 27 January 2022 Publication History

Abstract

The media quality assessment research community has traditionally been focusing on developing objective algorithms to predict the result of a typical subjective experiment in terms of Mean Opinion Score (MOS) value. However, the MOS, being a single value, is insufficient to model the complexity and diversity of human opinions encountered in an actual subjective experiment. In this work we propose a complementary approach for objective media quality assessment that attempts to more closely model what happens in a subjective experiment in terms of single observers and, at the same time, we perform a qualitative analysis of the proposed approach while highlighting its suitability. More precisely, we propose to model, using neural networks (NNs), the way single observers perceive media quality. Once trained, these NNs, one for each observer, are expected to mimic the corresponding observer in terms of quality perception. Then, similarly to a subjective experiment, such NNs can be used to simulate the users’ single opinions, which can be later aggregated by means of different statistical indicators such as average, standard deviation, quantiles, etc. Unlike previous approaches that consider subjective experiments as a black box providing reliable ground truth data for training, the proposed approach is able to consider human factors by analyzing and weighting individual observers. Such a model may therefore implicitly account for users’ expectations and tendencies, that have been shown in many studies to significantly correlate with visual quality perception. Furthermore, our proposal also introduces and investigates an index measuring how much inconsistency there would be if an observer was asked to rate many times the same stimulus. Simulation experiments conducted on several datasets demonstrate that the proposed approach can be effectively implemented in practice and thus yielding a more complete objective assessment of end users’ quality of experience.

References

[1]
C. G. Bampis, Z. Li, and A. C. Bovik. 2019. Spatiotemporal feature integration and model fusion for full reference video quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 29, 8 (Aug 2019), 2256–2270. DOI:
[2]
M. Barkowsky, E. Masala, G. Van Wallendael, K. Brunnström, N. Staelens, and P. Le Callet. 2015. Objective video quality assessment-towards large scale video database enhanced model development. IEICE Transactions on Communications E98B, 1 (2015), 2–11. DOI:
[3]
Jennifer Birch. 1997. Efficiency of the Ishihara test for identifying red-green colour deficiency. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 17, 5 (1997), 403–408.
[4]
Kjell Brunnström et al. 2012. Qualinet white paper on definitions of Quality of Experience. (2012). European Network on Quality of Experience in Multimedia Systems and Services (COST Action IC 1003).
[5]
ITU-R Rec. BT.500-11. 2002. Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures. (June 2002).
[6]
S. Chikkerur, V. Sundaram, M. Reisslein, and L. J. Karam. 2011. Objective video quality assessment methods: A classification, review, and performance comparison. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting 57, 2 (Feb 2011), 165–182.
[8]
Yashar Deldjoo, Markus Schedl, Paolo Cremonesi, and Gabriella Pasi. 2020. Recommender systems leveraging multimedia content. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 53, 5 (2020), 1–38.
[9]
Lohic Fotio Tiotsop, Enrico Masala, Ahmed Aldahdooh, Glenn Van Wallendael, and Marcus Barkowsky. 2019. Computing Quality-of-Experience ranges for video quality estimation. In Eleventh International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX). IEEE, Berlin, Germany, 1–3. DOI:
[10]
Lohic Fotio Tiotsop, Tomas Mizdos, Miroslav Uhrina, Peter Pocta, Marcus Barkowsky, and Enrico Masala. 2020. Predicting single observer’s votes from objective measures using neural networks. In Proceedings of Human Vision and Electronic Imaging Conference (HVEI). Society for Imaging Science and Technology (IS&T), Burlingame, CA, USA.
[11]
Lohic Fotio Tiotsop, Antonio Servetti, and Enrico Masala. 2020. Full reference video quality measure improvement using neural networks. In Proc. Intl. Conf. Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, Barcelona, Spain, 2737–2741. DOI:
[12]
Iris Galloso, Juan Palacios, Claudio Feijoo, and Asuncion Santamaria. 2016. On the influence of individual characteristics and personality traits on the user experience with multi-sensorial media: An experimental insight. Multimedia Tools and Applications 75 (Feb 2016). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-3360-z
[13]
Internet Media Group. 2019. Extension of the ITS4S Dataset. (Jan 2019). http://media.polito.it/its4s.
[14]
Tobias Hoßfeld, Poul E. Heegaard, Martín Varela, and Sebastian Möller. 2016. QoE beyond the MOS: An in-depth look at QoE via better metrics and their relation to MOS. Quality and User Experience 1, 1 (Sep 2016). DOI:
[15]
Tobias Hoßfeld, Raimund Schatz, and Sebastian Egger. 2011. SOS: The MOS is not enough!. In Third International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX). IEEE, Mechelen, Belgium, 131–136. DOI:
[16]
Qinghua Huang, Bisheng Chen, Jingdong Wang, and Tao Mei. 2014. Personalized video recommendation through graph propagation. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM) 10, 4 (2014), 1–17.
[17]
Mansoor Hyder, Christian Hoene, and Noel Crespi. 2012. Are QoE requirements for multimedia services different for men and women? Analysis of gender differences in forming QoE in virtual acoustic environments. In Intl. Multi Topic Conference on Emerging Trends and Applications in Information Communication Technologies (IMTIC), Vol. 281. Springer, Jamshoro, Pakistan. DOI:
[18]
ITU-T Rec. G.100 Amd. 1. 2007. Definition of Quality of Experience (QoE). (Jan 2007).
[19]
Lana Jalal, Matteo Anedda, Vlad Popescu, and Maurizio Murroni. 2018. QoE assessment for IoT-based multi sensorial media broadcasting. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting 64, 2 (2018), 552–560.
[20]
Lucjan Janowski and Zdzislaw Papir. 2009. Modeling subjective tests of quality of experience with a generalized linear model. In International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX). IEEE, San Diego, CA, USA, 35–40. DOI:
[21]
Lucjan Janowski and Margaret Pinson. 2015. The accuracy of subjects in a quality experiment: A theoretical subject model. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 17 (12 2015), 2210–2224. DOI:
[22]
Hendrik Knoche and Martina Angela Sasse. 2009. The big picture on small screens delivering acceptable video quality in mobile TV. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM) 5, 3 (2009), 1–27.
[23]
Jari Korhonen. 2019. Assessing personally perceived image quality via image features and collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, Long Beach, CA, USA, 8169–8177.
[24]
L. Krasula, Y. Baveye, and P. Le Callet. 2020. Training objective image and video quality estimators using multiple databases. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 22, 4 (2020), 961–969.
[25]
P. Le Callet, C. Viard-Gaudin, and D. Barba. 2006. A convolutional neural network approach for objective video quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 17, 5 (Sep 2006), 1316–1327.
[26]
Mikolaj Leszczuk, Mateusz Hanusiak, Mylene Farias, Emmanuel Wyckens, and George Heston. 2016. Recent developments in visual quality monitoring by key performance indicators. Multimedia Tools and Applications 75 (2016), 10745-10767. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-014-2229-2
[27]
Z. Li and C. G. Bampis. 2017. Recover subjective quality scores from noisy measurements. In Data Compression Conference (DCC). IEEE, Snowbird, UT, USA, 52–61.
[28]
Torrin M. Liddell and John K. Kruschke. 2018. Analyzing ordinal data with metric models: What could possibly go wrong?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 79 (Nov 2018), 328–348. DOI:
[29]
Karan Mitra, Arkady Zaslavsky, and Christer Ahlund. 2015. Context-aware QoE modelling, measurement and prediction in mobile computing systems. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 14 (May 2015), 920–936. DOI:
[30]
Jim Mullin, Lucy Smallwood, Anna Watson, and Gillian Wilson. 2001. New techniques for assessing audio and video quality in real-time interactive communications. In IHM-HCI Tutorial. Lille, France.
[31]
Anja B. Naumann, Ina Wechsung, and Jorn Hurtienne. 2010. Multimodal interaction: A suitable strategy for including older users?Interacting with Computers 22, 6 (Nov 2010), 465–474. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.08.005
[32]
Netflix. 2019. VMAF - Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion. https://github.com/Netflix/vmaf. (Jan. 2019).
[33]
Geoff Norman. 2010. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education 15 (2010), 625–632.
[34]
ITU-T Rec. P.910. 2008. Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. (Apr 2008).
[35]
Joana Palhais, Rui S. Cruz, and Mário S. Nunes. 2012. Quality of experience assessment in internet TV. In Proc. Intl. Conf. on Mobile Networks and Management. Springer, Aveiro, Portugal, 261–274.
[36]
Margaret H. Pinson. 2018. ITS4S: A Video Quality Dataset with Four-Second Unrepeated Scenes. (Feb 2018). NTIA, Technical Memo TM-18-532.
[37]
Mijke Rhemtulla, Patricia Brosseau-Liard, and Victoria Savalei. 2012. When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods 17, 3 (2012), 354–373.
[38]
M. Ries, O. Nemethova, and M. Rupp. 2007. Motion based reference-free quality estimation for H.264/AVC video streaming. In 2007 2nd International Symposium on Wireless Pervasive Computing. IEEE, San Juan, Puerto Rico. DOI:
[39]
M. J. Scott, S. C. Guntuku, W. Lin, and G. Ghinea. 2016. Do personality and culture influence perceived video quality and enjoyment?IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 18, 9 (2016), 1796–1807.
[40]
M. Seufert. 2019. Fundamental advantages of considering Quality of Experience distributions over mean opinion scores. In 2019 Eleventh International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX). IEEE, Berlin, Germany, 1–6. DOI:
[41]
H. R. Sheikh and A. C. Bovik. 2006. Image information and visual quality. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 15, 2 (Feb 2006), 430–444.
[42]
Robert C. Streijl, Stefan Winkler, and David S. Hands. 2016. Mean opinion score (MOS) revisited: Methods and applications, limitations and alternatives. Multimedia Systems 22, 2 (Mar 2016), 213–227. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00530-014-0446-1
[43]
Stevens Sue. 2007. Test distance vision using a Snellen chart.Community Eye Health 20, 63 (2007), 52.
[44]
Domonkos Varga. 2019. No-reference video quality assessment based on the temporal pooling of deep features. Neural Processing Letters 50, 3 (12 Apr 2019), 2595–2608. DOI:
[45]
Domonkos Varga, Dietmar Saupe, and Tamás Szirányi. 2018. Deeprn: A content preserving deep architecture for blind image quality assessment. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME). IEEE, San Diego, CA, USA, 1–6. DOI:
[46]
VQEG. 2010. Report on the Validation of Video Quality Models for High Definition Video Content (v. 2.0). (Jun 2010). http://bit.ly/2Z7GWDI
[47]
Z. Wang, E. P. Simoncelli, and A. C. Bovik. 2003. Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment. In The Thirty-Seventh Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers, Vol. 2. IEEE, Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 1398–1402. DOI:
[48]
Ina Wechsung, Matthias Schulz, Klaus-Peter Engelbrecht, Julia Niemann, and Sebastian Möller. 2011. All users are (not) equal - the influence of user characteristics on perceived quality, modality choice and performance. In Proc. IWSDS Workshop on Paralinguistic Information and its Integration in Spoken Dialogue Systems. Springer, New York, NY, USA, 175–186. DOI:
[49]
Xiaochi Wei, Heyan Huang, Liqiang Nie, Fuli Feng, Richang Hong, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2018. Quality matters: Assessing cQA pair quality via transductive multi-view learning. In Proc. of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). Stockholm, Sweden, 4482–4488.
[50]
S. Winkler and P. Mohandas. 2008. The evolution of video quality measurement: From PSNR to hybrid metrics. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting 54, 3 (Sep 2008), 660–668. DOI:
[51]
L. Xu, W. Lin, L. Ma, Y. Zhang, Y. Fang, K. N. Ngan, S. Li, and Y. Yan. 2016. Free-energy principle inspired video quality metric and its use in video coding. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 18, 4 (Feb 2016), 590–602.
[52]
B. Yan, B. Bare, and W. Tan. 2019. Naturalness-aware deep no-reference image quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 21, 10 (Mar 2019), 2603–2615.
[53]
Wei Yang, Kuanquan Wang, and Wangmeng Zuo. 2012. Neighborhood component feature selection for high-dimensional data. Journal of Computers 7 (Jan 2012), 161–168.
[54]
J. You and J. Korhonen. 2019. Deep neural networks for no-reference video quality assessment. In IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). IEEE, Taipei, Taiwan, 2349–2353.
[55]
Hui Zeng, Lei Zhang, and Alan C Bovik. 2017. A probabilistic quality representation approach to deep blind image quality prediction. (2017). arXiv:arXiv:1708.08190v2
[56]
Yu Zhang, Xinbo Gao, Lihuo He, Wen Lu, and Ran He. 2020. Objective video quality assessment combining transfer learning with CNN. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 31, 8 (2020), 2716–2730. DOI:
[57]
Zhou Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli. 2004. Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 13, 4 (Apr 2004), 600–612. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2003.819861
[58]
Yi Zhu, Sharath Chandra Guntuku, Weisi Lin, Gheorghita Ghinea, and Judith A. Redi. 2018. Measuring individual video QoE: A survey, and proposal for future directions using social media. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM) 14, 2s (2018), 1–24.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Multiple Image Distortion DNN Modeling Individual Subject Quality AssessmentACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications10.1145/366419820:8(1-27)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2024
  • (2023)2BiVQA: Double Bi-LSTM-based Video Quality Assessment of UGC VideosACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications10.1145/363217820:4(1-22)Online publication date: 11-Dec-2023
  • (2023)VQEG Column: VQEG Meeting Dec. 2021 (Virtual/Online)ACM SIGMultimedia Records10.1145/3630646.363065114:1(1-1)Online publication date: 25-Oct-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Mimicking Individual Media Quality Perception with Neural Network based Artificial Observers

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications
    ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications  Volume 18, Issue 1
    January 2022
    517 pages
    ISSN:1551-6857
    EISSN:1551-6865
    DOI:10.1145/3505205
    Issue’s Table of Contents

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 27 January 2022
    Accepted: 01 May 2021
    Revised: 01 April 2021
    Received: 01 November 2020
    Published in TOMM Volume 18, Issue 1

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Media quality
    2. human factors
    3. user expectations
    4. subjects opinions
    5. neural networks

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Refereed

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)37
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
    Reflects downloads up to 15 Oct 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Multiple Image Distortion DNN Modeling Individual Subject Quality AssessmentACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications10.1145/366419820:8(1-27)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2024
    • (2023)2BiVQA: Double Bi-LSTM-based Video Quality Assessment of UGC VideosACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications10.1145/363217820:4(1-22)Online publication date: 11-Dec-2023
    • (2023)VQEG Column: VQEG Meeting Dec. 2021 (Virtual/Online)ACM SIGMultimedia Records10.1145/3630646.363065114:1(1-1)Online publication date: 25-Oct-2023
    • (2023)Image Quality Score Distribution Prediction via Alpha Stable ModelIEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology10.1109/TCSVT.2022.322983933:6(2656-2671)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2023
    • (2023)Training the DNN of a Single Observer by Conducting Individualized Subjective Experiments2023 15th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX)10.1109/QoMEX58391.2023.10178608(103-106)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2023
    • (2023)A Scoring Model Considering the Variability of Subjects' Characteristics in Subjective Experiments2023 15th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX)10.1109/QoMEX58391.2023.10178476(43-48)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2023
    • (2023)Predicting individual quality ratings of compressed images through deep CNNs-based artificial observersImage Communication10.1016/j.image.2022.116917112:COnline publication date: 1-Mar-2023
    • (undefined)Predicting Individual Quality Ratings of Compressed Images Through Deep Cnns-Based Artificial ObserversSSRN Electronic Journal10.2139/ssrn.4097376

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    Full Access

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    Full Text

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media