skip to main content
research-article

User Quality of Experience of Mulsemedia Applications

Published:01 October 2014Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

User Quality of Experience (QoE) is of fundamental importance in multimedia applications and has been extensively studied for decades. However, user QoE in the context of the emerging multiple-sensorial media (mulsemedia) services, which involve different media components than the traditional multimedia applications, have not been comprehensively studied. This article presents the results of subjective tests which have investigated user perception of mulsemedia content. In particular, the impact of intensity of certain mulsemedia components including haptic and airflow on user-perceived experience are studied. Results demonstrate that by making use of mulsemedia the overall user enjoyment levels increased by up to 77%.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. J. G. Apostolopoulos, P. A. Chou, B. Culbertson, T. Kalker, M. D. Trott, and S. Wee. 2012. The road to immersive communication. Proc. IEEE 100, 4, 974--990.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. G. Blakowski and R. Steinmetz. 1996. A media synchronisation survey: Reference model, specification, and case studies. IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun. 14, 1, 5--35. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. Bodnar, R. Corbeth, and D. Netrasorski. 2014, AROMA: Ambient awareness through olfaction in a messaging application - Does olfactory notification make “scents”? In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. C. C. Carbon and H. Leder. 2005. The repeated evaluation technique (RET). A method to capture dynamic effects of innovativeness and attractiveness. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 19, 5, 587--601.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. J. P. Cater. 1992. The nose have it! Letters to the editor. Presence 1, 4, 493--494.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. H. Q. Dinh, N. Walker, L. F. Hodges, C. Song, and A. Kobayashi. 1999. Evaluating the importance of multi-sensory input on memory and the sense of presence in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium. 222--228. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. S. I. Donaldson and E. J. Grant-Vallone. 2002. Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research. J. Bus. Psychol. 17, 2, 245--260.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. ETSI. 2009. ETSI TR 102 643 V1.0.1: Human factors (HF): Quality of experience (QoE) requirements for real-time communication services. Tech. rep. ETSI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. G. Ghinea, S. R. Gulliver, and F. Andres. 2011 Multiple sensorial media advances and applications: New developments in MulSeMedia. IGI Global.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. G. Ghinea and O. A. Ademoye. 2010a. Perceived synchronization of olfactory multimedia. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet. Part A: Systems and Humans 40, 4, 657--663. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. G. Ghinea and O. A. Ademoye. 2010b. A user perspective of olfaction-enhanced mulsemedia. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Emergent Digital EcoSystems. 277--280. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. G. Ghinea and O. A. Ademoye. 2012. The sweet smell of success: Enhancing multimedia applications with olfaction. ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl. 8, 1, Article 2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. G. Ghinea and J. P. Thomas. 2005. Quality of perception: User quality of service in multimedia presentations. IEEE Trans. Multimedia 7, 4, 786--789. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. M. L. Heilig. 1962, Sensorama simulator. U.S. Patent 3,050,870. Filed January 10, 1961. Accepted August 28, 1962.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. ITu. 1998. P.911: Subjective audiovisual quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. International Telecommunications Union.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Y. Ishibashi, T. Kanbara, and S. Tasaka. 2004. Inter-stream synchronization between haptic media and voice in collaborative virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 604--611. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. M. Jakesch, M. Zachhuber, H. Leder, M. Spingler, and C. C. Carbon. 2011. Scenario-based touching: On the influence of top-down processes on tactile and visual appreciation. Res. Eng. Des. 22, 3, 143--152.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. K. Kahol, P. Tripathi, T. Mcdaniel, T. Bratton, and S. Panchanathan. 2006. Modeling context in haptic perception, rendering, and visualization. ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl. 2, 3, 219--240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. J. N. Kaye. 2001. Symbolic olfactory display. M.S. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://alumni.media.mit.edu/∼jofish/thesis/. (Last accessed March 2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. N. Murray, Y. Qiao, A. K. Karunakar, B. Lee, and G.-M. Muntean. 2013. Subjective evaluation of olfactory and visual media synchronization. In Proceedings of the ACM Multimedia Systems Conference. 162--171. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. N. Murray, Y. Qiao, B. Lee, and G. M. Muntean. 2014. User-profile-based perceived olfactory and visual media synchronization. ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl. 10, 1, Article 11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. H. T. Nagle, R. Gutierrez-Osuna, and S. S. Schiffman. 1998. The how and why of electronic noses. IEEE Spectrum, 35, 9, 22--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. NTT Com. 2006. Movie enhanced with internet-based fragrance system. NIT Communications. http://www.in70mm.com/news/2006/new_world/index.htm (Last accessed March 2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. J. Nunnaly. 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. E. Steinbach, S. Hirche, M. Ernst, F. Brandi, R. Chaudhari, J. Kammerl, and I. Vittorias. 2012. Haptic communications. Proc. IEEE 100, 4, 937--956.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. D. A. Washburn, L. M. Jones, R. V. Satya, C. A. Bowers, and A. Cortes. 2003. Olfactory use in virtual environment training. Model. Simul. Mag. 2, 3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Z. Yuan, G. Ghinea, and G.-M. Muntean. 2014. Quality of experience study for multiple sensorial media delivery. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. User Quality of Experience of Mulsemedia Applications

    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!