skip to main content
research-article

A Quality of Experience Model for Haptic Virtual Environments

Published:17 April 2014Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Haptic-based Virtual Reality (VR) applications have many merits. What is still obscure, from the designer's perspective of these applications, is the experience the users will undergo when they use the VR system. Quality of Experience (QoE) is an evaluation metric from the user's perspective that unfortunately has received limited attention from the research community. Assessing the QoE of VR applications reflects the amount of overall satisfaction and benefits gained from the application in addition to laying the foundation for ideal user-centric design in the future. In this article, we propose a taxonomy for the evaluation of QoE for multimedia applications and in particular VR applications. We model this taxonomy using a Fuzzy logic Inference System (FIS) to quantitatively measure the QoE of haptic virtual environments. We build and test our FIS by conducting a users' study analysis to evaluate the QoE of a haptic game application. Our results demonstrate that the proposed FIS model reflects the user's estimation of the application's quality significantly with low error and hence is suited for QoE evaluation.

References

  1. H. Al Osman, M. Eid, and A. El Saddik. 2008. Evaluating ALPHAN: A network protocol for haptic interaction. In Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environments and Teleoperator Systems. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. A. Alamri, M. Eid, and A. El Saddik. 2008. A quality of performance model for evaluating post-stroke patients. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Measurement Systems and Applications (CIMSA'08). 14--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. C. Basdogan, C. H. Ho, M. A. Srinivasan, and M. Slater. 2000. An experimental study on the role of touch in shared virtual environments. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 7, 443--460. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. K. Behr, A. Nosper, C. Klimmt, and T. Hartmann. 2005. Some practical considerations of ethical issues in VR research. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 14, 668--676. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. A. Bhattacharya, W. Wu, and Z. Yang. 2011. Quality of experience evaluation of voice communication systems using affect-based approach. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 929--932. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. K. Black. 2004. Business Statistics: For Contemporary Decision Making. Leyh Publishing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. R. A. Cribbie, J. A. Gruman, and C. A. Arpin-Cribbie. 2004. Recommendations for applying tests of equivalence. J. Clinical Psych. 60, 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. F. Danieau, J. Fleureau, A. Cabec, P. Kerbiriou, P. Guillotel, N. Mollet, M. Christie, and A. L'Ecuyer. 2012. Framework for enhancing video viewing experience with haptic effects of motion. In Proceedings of the Haptics Symposium. 541--546.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. L. De Marez and K. De Moor. 2007. The challenge of user- and QoE-centric research and product development in today's ICT-environment. Observatorio (OBS*) 1, 1--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. C. De Vleeschouwer, T. Delmot, X. Marichal, and B. Macq. 1997. A fuzzy logic system for content-based bit-rate allocation. Signal Proces. Image Commun. 10, 115--141.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. T. Ebrahimi. 2009. Quality of multimedia experience: past, present and future. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 3--4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. A. El Saddik. 2007. The potential of haptic technologies. IEEE Instrum. Meas. Mag. 10, 1, 10--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. A. Gaggioli, M. Bassi, and A. Fave. 2003. Quality of experience in virtual environments. Emerging Commun. 5, 121--136.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. A. Guerraz, C. Loscos, and R. Widenfeld. 2003. How to use physical parameters coming from the haptic device itself to enhance the evaluation of haptic benefits in user interface? In Proceedings of the Eurohaptics Conference. 137--145.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. F. Gutierrez, J. Pierce, V. M. Vergara, R. Coulter, L. Saland, T. P. Caudell, T. E. Goldsmith, and D. C. Alverson. 2007. The effect of degree of immersion upon learning performance in virtual reality simulations for medical education. Stud. Health Tech. Informatics 125, 155--160.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. I. Hajshirmohammadi and S. Payandeh. 2007. Fuzzy set theory for performance evaluation in a surgical simulator. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 16, 603--622. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. A. Hamam, M. Eid, A. E. Saddik, and N. D. Georganas. 2008a. A quality of experience model for haptic user interfaces. In Proceedings of the Ambi-Sys Workshop on Haptic User Interfaces in Ambient Media Systems (HAS'08). 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. A. Hamam, M. Eid, A. E. Saddik, and N. D. Georganas. 2008b. A fuzzy logic system for evaluating quality of experience of haptic-based applications. In Proceedings of the Eurohaptics Conference. Springer, 129--138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. A. Hamam, M. Eid, and A. E. Saddik. 2013. A. Effect of kinesthetic and tactile haptic feedback on the quality of experience of edutainment applications. Multimedia Tools Appl. 67, 2, 455--472. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. A. Hamam and El Saddik, 2013. Towards a mathematical model for quality of experience evaluation of haptic applications. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 62, 12. DOI: 10.1109/TIM.2013.2272859.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. P. Huang, Y. Ishibashi, N. Fukushima, and S. Sugawara. 2012. QoE assessment of olfactory media in remote ikebana with haptic media. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop Technical Committee on Communications Quality and Reliability. 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Y. Ida, Y. Ishibashi, N. Fukushima, and S. Sugawara. 2010. QoE assessment of interactivity and fairness in First Person Shooting with group synchronization control. In Proceedings of the Annual Workshop on Network and Systems Support for Games. 1--2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. W. Ijsselsteijn, Y. De Kort, K. Poels, A. Jurgelionis, and F. Bellotti. 2007. Characterising and measuring user experiences in digital games. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. K. Iwata, Y. Ishibashi, N. Fukushima, and S. Sugawara. 2010. QoE assessment in haptic media, sound, and video transmission: Effect of playout buffering control. Comput. Entertain. 8, 12:1--12:14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. R. Jain. 2004. Quality of experience. IEEE Multimedia 11, 96--95. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. L. A. Jones and H. Ho. 2008. Warm or Cool, Large or Small? The Challenge of Thermal Displays. IEEE Trans. Haptics 1, 53--70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. M. Karam, F. A. Russo, and D. I. Fels. 2009. Designing the Model Human Cochlea: An Ambient Crossmodal Audio-Tactile Display. IEEE Trans. Haptics 2, 160--169. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Y. Kusunose, Y. Ishibashi, N. Fukushima, and S. Sugawara. 2010. QoE assessment in networked air hockey game with haptic media. In Proceedings of the Annual Workshop on Network and Systems Support for Games. 1--2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. K. S. Park and R. V. Kenyon. 1999. Effects of network characteristics on human performance in a collaborative virtual environment. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. E. H. Mamdani and S. Assilian. 1999. An experiment in linguistic synthesis with a fuzzy logic controller. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 51, 135--147. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. MATLAB Documentation, Fuzzy logic toolbox for use with MATLAB. Math Works Inc., 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. V. G. Miller. 1993. Measurement of self-perception of intuitiveness. Western J. Nursing Res. 15, 595.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. C. C. Preston and A. M. Colman. 2000. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica 104.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. L. Nacke and C. A. Lindley. 2008. Flow and immersion in first-person shooters: measuring the player's gameplay experience. In Proceedings of the Conference on Future Play: Research, Play, Share. ACM, 81--88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. L. E. Nacke and C. A. Lindley. 2010. Affective ludology, flow and immersion in a first-person shooter: Measurement of player experience. Loading 3, 5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. A. Ramsey. 1997. Investigation of physiological measures relative to self-report of virtual reality induced sickness and effects (VRISE). In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Motion Sickness: Medical and Human Factors. 26--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. G. H. Roid. 2004. Quality of performance and change-sensitive assessment of cognitive ability. In Proceedings of the International Test Users Conference. Austrahan Conference for Educational Research.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. L. A. Rowe and R. Jain. 2005. ACM SIGMM retreat report on future directions in multimedia research. ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl. 1, 3--13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. R. Seroussi, M. H. Krag, P. Wilder, and M. H. Pope. 1989. The design and use of a microcomputerized real-time muscle fatigue monitor based on the medical frequency shift in the electromyographic signal. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 36, 284--286.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. M. A. Srinivasan and C. Basdogan. 1997. Haptics in virtual environments: Taxonomy, research status, and challenges. Computers Graphics 21, 393--404.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. D. L. Streiner. 2003. Unicorns do exist: a tutorial on “proving” the null hypothesis. Canadian J. Psych. 48, 756--761.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. D. Strickland, L. Hodges, M. North, and S. Weghorst. 1997. Overcoming phobias by virtual exposure. Commun. ACM 40, 34--39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. P. Sweetser and P. Wyeth. 2005. GameFlow: a model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. Computers Entertain. 3, 3--3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. A. Tatematsu, Y. Ishibashi, N. Fukushima, and S. Sugawara. 2010. QoE assessment in haptic media, sound and video transmission: Influences of network latency. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop Technical Committee on Communications Quality and Reliability. 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. L. X. Wang and J. M. Mendel. 1992. Generating fuzzy rules by learning from examples. IEEE Trans Syst. Man Cyber. 22, 1414--1427.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. T. E. Whalen, S. Noel, and J. Stewart. 2003. Measuring the human side of virtual reality. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Virtual Environments, Human- Computer Interfaces and Measurement Systems (VECIMS'03). 8--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. W. Wu, A. Arefin, R. Rivas, K. Nahrstedt, R. Sheppard, and Z. Yang. 2009. Quality of experience in distributed interactive multimedia environments: toward a theoretical framework. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 481--490. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. W. Wu, A. Arefin, Z. Huang, P. Agarwal, S. Shi, R. Rivas, and K. Nahrstedt. 2010. “I'm the Jedi!” - A case study of user experience in 3D tele-immersive gaming. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia. 220--227. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A Quality of Experience Model for Haptic Virtual Environments

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!