skip to main content
research-article

Modeling the User Experience of Watching 360° Videos with Head-Mounted Displays

Published:27 January 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Conducting user studies to quantify the Quality of Experience (QoE) of watching the increasingly more popular 360° videos in Head-Mounted Displays (HMDs) is time-consuming, tedious, and expensive. Deriving QoE models, however, is very challenging because of the diverse viewing behaviors and complex QoE features and factors. In this article, we compile a wide spectrum of QoE features and factors that may contribute to the overall QoE. We design and conduct a user study to build a dataset of the overall QoE, QoE features, and QoE factors. Using the dataset, we derive the QoE models for both the Mean Opinion Score (MOS) and Individual Score (IS), where MOS captures the aggregated QoE across all subjects, while IS captures the QoE of individual subjects. Our derived overall QoE models achieve 0.98 and 0.91 in Pearson’s Linear Correlation Coefficient (PLCC) for MOS and IS, respectively. Besides, we make several new observations on our user study results, such as (1) content factors dominate the overall QoE across all factor categories, (2) Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion (VMAF) is the dominating factor among content factors, and (3) the perceived cybersickness is affected by human factors more among others. Our proposed user study design is useful for QoE modeling (specifically) and subjective evaluations (in general) of emerging 360° tiled video streaming to HMDs.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Anwar Muhammad Shahid, Wang Jing, Ahmad Sadique, Khan Wahab, Ullah Asad, Shah Mudassir, and Fei Zesong. 2020. Impact of the impairment in 360-degree videos on users VR involvement and machine learning-based QoE predictions. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 204585–204596.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [2] Anwar Muhammad Shahid, Wang Jing, Khan Wahab, Ullah Asad, Ahmad Sadique, and Fei Zesong. 2020. Subjective QoE of 360-degree virtual reality videos and machine learning predictions. IEEE Access (2020), 148084–148099.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. [3] Aroussi Sana and Mellouk Abdelhamid. 2014. Survey on machine learning-based QoE-QoS correlation models. In Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Computing, Management and Telecommunications (ComManTel’14). Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. [4] Basak Debasish, Pal Srimanta, and Patranabis Dipak Chandra. 2007. Support vector regression. Neural Information Processing-Letters and Reviews 11, 10 (2007), 203–224.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. [5] Bessa Maximino, Melo Miguel, Narciso David, Barbosa Luis, and Vasconcelos-Raposo Jose. 2016. Does 3D 360 video enhance user’s VR experience: An evaluation study. In Proc. of International Conference on Human Computer Interaction (Interaction’16). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. [6] Bouraqia Khadija, Sabir Essaid, Sadik Mohamed, and Ladid Latif. 2020. Quality of experience for streaming services: Measurements, challenges and insights. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 13341–13361.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. [7] Bush Lauren, Hess Ursula, and Wolford George. 1993. Transformations for within-subject designs: A Monte Carlo investigation.APA Psychological Bulletin 113, 3 (1993), 566–579.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. [8] Channappayya Sumohana S., Bovik Alan C., Caramanis Constantine, and Jr. Robert W. Heath2008. SSIM-Optimal linear image restoration. In Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP’08). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. [9] Co. HTC2019. VIVE: Discover Virtual Reality Beyond Imagination. Retrieved April 8, 2019, from https://www.vive.com/us/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. [10] Corporation HTC. 2020. Eye Tracking SDK (SRanipal). Retrieved January 22, 2020, from https://developer.vive.com/resources/knowledgebase/vive-sranipal-sdk/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. [11] Corporation HTC. 2020. VIVE PRO EYE. Retrieved January 22, 2020, from https://enterprise.vive.com/us/product/vive-pro-eye/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. [12] Croci Simone, Ozcinar Cagri, Zerman Emin, Cabrera Julián, and Smolic Aljosa. 2019. Voronoi-based objective quality metrics for omnidirectional video. In Proc. of International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX’19).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. [13] Croci Simone, Ozcinar Cagri, Zerman Emin, Knorr Sebastian, Cabrera Julián, and Smolic Aljosa. 2020. Visual attention-aware quality estimation framework for omnidirectional video using spherical Voronoi diagram. Springer Quality and User Experience 5, 1 (2020), 4:1–4:17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. [14] Egan Darragh, Brennan Sean, Barrett John, Qiao Yuansong, Timmerer Christian, and Murray Niall. 2016. An evaluation of heart rate and electrodermal activity as an objective QoE evaluation method for immersive virtual reality environments. In Proc. of International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX’16).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. [15] Fan C., Lo W., Pai Y., and Hsu C.. 2019. A survey on 360° video streaming: Acquisition, transmission, and display. Computing Surveys 52, 4 (2019), 71:1–71:36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. [16] Fan C., Yen S., Huang C., and Hsu C.. 2020. On the optimal encoding ladder of tiled 360° videos for head-mounted virtual reality. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 31, 4 (July 2020), 1632–1647.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. [17] Fernandes Ajoy S. and Feiner Steven K.. 2016. Combating VR sickness through subtle dynamic Field-of-View modification. In Proc. of IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI’16).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. [18] Freedman David A.. 2009. Statistical Models: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. [19] Fremerey Stephan, Göring Steve, Rao Rakesh Rao Ramachandra, Huang Rachel, and Raake Alexander. 2020. Subjective test dataset and meta-data-based models for 360° streaming video quality. In Proc. of IEEE International Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing (MMSP’20).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. [20] Friedman Jerome H.. 2001. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. JSTOR Annals of Statistics 29, 5 (2001), 1632–1647.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. [21] Hakkinen Jukka, Vuori Tero, and Paakka M.. 2002. Postural stability and sickness symptoms after HMD use. In IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. [22] Hoßfeld Tobias, Heegaard Poul, Varela Martín, and Möller Sebastian. 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 (2016), 2:1–2:23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. [23] Hsu Chih-Fan, Chen Anthony, Hsu Cheng-Hsin, Huang Chun-Ying, Lei Chin-Laung, and Chen Kuan-Ta. 2017. Is foveated rendering perceivable in virtual reality: Exploring the efficiency and consistency of quality assessment methods. In Proc. of ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM’17). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. [24] Huang Mingkai, Shen Qiu, Ma Zhan, Bovik Alan Conrad, Gupta Praful, Zhou Rongbing, and Cao Xun. 2018. Modeling the perceptual quality of immersive images rendered on head mounted displays: Resolution and compression. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 27, 12 (2018), 6039–6050. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. [25] Inc. Netflix2019. VMAF - Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion. https://github.com/Netflix/vmaf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. [26] ISO 23009-1:2012 2012. Information Technology – Dynamic Adaptive Streaming Over HTTP (DASH) – Part 1: Media Presentation Description and Segment Formats. (March 2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. [27] ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11/N17197 2017. Algorithm Descriptions of Projection Format Conversion and Video Quality Metrics in 360Lib. Standard. International Telecommunication Union.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. [28] ITU. 2019. JVET - Joint Video Experts Team. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/studygroups/2017-2020/16/Pages/video/jvet.aspx.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. [29] ITU, COM 9-80-E 2000. Final Report from the Video Quality Experts Group on the Validation of Objective Models of Video Quality Assessment. Technical Report. VQEG.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. [30] Sector ITU Telecommunication Standardization. 1999. Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. ITU-T Recommendation P.910 (September 1999).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. [31] John Brendan, Raiturkar Pallavi, Meur Olivier Le, and Jain Eakta. 2019. A benchmark of four methods for generating 360° saliency maps from eye tracking data. World Scientific International Journal of Semantic Computing 13, 3 (2019), 329–341.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. [32] Juluri Parikshit, Tamarapalli Venkatesh, and Medhi Deep. 2016. Measurement of quality of experience of video-on-demand services: A survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 18, 1 (2016), 401–418.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. [33] Jumisko-Pyykkö Satu and Vainio Teija. 2010. Framing the context of use for mobile HCI. IGI Global International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction 2, 4 (2010), 1–28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. [34] Kennedy Robert S., Lane Norman E., Berbaum Kevin S., and Lilienthal Michael G.. 1993. Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. International Journal of Aviation Psychology 3, 3 (1993), 203–220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. [35] Ketykó István, Moor Katrien De, Pessemier Toon De, Verdejo Adrián Juan, Vanhecke Kris, Joseph Wout, Martens Luc, and Marez Lieven De. 2010. QoE measurement of mobile YouTube video streaming. In Proc. of Workshop on Mobile Video Delivery (MoVid’10). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. [36] Kim Hak Gu, Lim Heoun-Taek, Lee Sangmin, and Ro Yong Man. 2018. VRSA net: VR sickness assessment considering exceptional motion for 360 VR video. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 28, 4 (2018), 1646–1660.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. [37] Kim Jaekvung, Kim Woojae, Ahn Sewoong, Kim Jinwoo, and Lee Sanghoon. 2018. Virtual reality sickness predictor: Analysis of visual-vestibular conflict and VR contents. In Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX’18).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. [38] Lee Tae Min, Yoon Jong-Chul, and Lee In-Kwon. 2019. Motion sickness prediction in stereoscopic videos using 3D convolutional neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 25, 5 (2019), 1919–1927.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. [39] Liaw Andy, Wiener Matthew, et al. 2002. Classification and Regression by RandomForest. R News 2, 3 (2002), 18–22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. [40] Lo Wen-Chih, Fan Ching-Ling, Yen Shou-Cheng, and Hsu Cheng-Hsin. 2017. Performance measurements of 360° video streaming to head-mounted displays over live 4G cellular networks. In Proc. of Asia-Pacific Network Operations and Management Symposium (APNOMS’17).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. [41] Lucas Bruce D. and Kanade Takeo. 1981. An iterative image registration technique with an application to stereo vision. In Proc. of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’81). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. [42] MATLAB 2020. MATLAB - MathWorks. Retrieved August 4, 2020, from https://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. [43] Misra Kiran, Segall Andrew, Horowitz Michael, Xu Shilin, Fuldseth Arild, and Zhou Minhua. 2013. An overview of tiles in HEVC. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing 7, 6 (December 2013), 969–977.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. [44] Moller Sebastian, Waltermann Marcel, and Garcia Marie-Neige. 2014. Features of quality of experience. In Quality of Experience, Moller Sebastian and Editors Alexander Raake (Eds.). Springer US, Chapter 5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. [45] Nardi Bonnie A.. 1996. Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. [46] Inc. Netflix2016. NFLX Dataset. Retrieved May 17, 2020, from https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0B3YWNICYMBIweGdJbERlUG9zc0k.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. [47] nthu nmsl. 2020. QoE-Modeling-for-360-Degree-Videos-Dataset. Retrieved August 11, 2020, from https://github.com/nmsl-nthu/QoE-Modeling-for-360-Degree-Videos-Dataset.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. [48] VR LLC. Oculus. 2019. Facebook Oculus Rift. Retrieved April 8, 2019, from https://www.oculus.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. [49] Orduna Marta, Díaz César, Muñoz Lara, Pérez Pablo, Benito Ignacio, and García Narciso. 2019. Video multimethod assessment fusion (VMAF) on 360VR contents. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics 66, 1 (2019), 22–31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. [50] Padmanaban Nitish, Ruban Timon, Sitzmann Vincent, Norcia Anthony M., and Wetzstein Gordon. 2018. Towards a machine-learning approach for sickness prediction in 360 stereoscopic videos. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 24, 4 (2018), 1594–1603. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. [51] Pedregosa Fabian, Varoquaux Gael, Gramfort Alexandre, Thirion Bertrand, Grisel Olivier, Blondel Mathieu, Blondel Mathieu, Weiss Ron, Dubourg Vincent, Vanderplas Jake, Passos Alexandre, Cournapeau David, Brucher Matthieu, Perrot Matthieu, and Duchesnay Edouard. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12 (2011), 2825–2830. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. [52] Raake Alexander, Singla Ashutosh, Rao Rakesh Rao Ramachandra, Robitza Werner, and Hofmeyer Frank. 2020. SiSiMo: Towards simulator sickness modeling for 360° videos viewed with an HMD. In Proc. of IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW’20).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. [53] Rahman Md Abdur, Saddik Abdulmotaleb El, and Gueaieb Wail. 2010. Augmenting context awareness by combining body sensor networks and social networks. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 60, 2 (2010), 345–353.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. [54] Rai Yashas, Callet Patrick Le, and Guillotel Philippe. 2017. Which saliency weighting for omni directional image quality assessment? In Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX’17).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. [55] Regal Georg, Schatz Raimund, Schrammel Johann, and Suette Stefan. 2018. VRate: A Unity3D asset for integrating subjective assessment questionnaires in virtual environments. In Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX’18).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. [56] Reiter Ulrich, Brunnström Kjell, Moor Katrien De, Larabi Mohamed-Chaker, Pereira Manuela, Pinheiro Antonio, You Junyong, and Zgank Andrej. 2014. Factors influencing quality of experience. In Quality of Experience, Moller Sebastian and Editors Alexander Raake (Eds.). Springer US, Chapter 4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. [57] Schatz Raimund, Regal Georg, Schwarz Stephanie, Suettc Stefan, and Kempf Marina. 2018. Assessing the QoE impact of 3D rendering style in the context of VR-based training. In Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX’18).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. [58] Sector ITU Telecommunication Standardization. 2008. Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. ITU-T Recommendation P.910 (April 2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. [59] Sector ITU Telecommunication Standardization. 2016. Mean opinion score (MOS) terminology. ITU-T Recommendation P.800.1 (July 2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. [60] Sector ITU Telecommunication Standardization. 2016. Methods for the subjective assessment of video quality, audio quality and audiovisual quality of Internet video and distribution quality television in any environment. ITU-T Recommendation P.913 (March 2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. [61] Sector ITU Telecommunication Standardization. 2016. Series P: Terminals and subjective and objective assessment methods. ITU-T Recommendation P.800.2 (July 2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. [62] Shiffler Ronald E.. 1988. Maximum Z scores and outliers. American Statistician 42, 1 (1988), 79–80.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. [63] Singla Ashutosh, Fremerey Stephan, Robitza Werner, Lebreton Pierre, and Raake Alexander. 2017. Comparison of subjective quality evaluation for HEVC encoded omnidirectional videos at different bit-rates for UHD and FHD resolution. In Proc. of ACM Multimedia Thematic Workshops. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. [64] Singla Ashutosh, Fremerey Stephan, Robitza Werner, and Raake Alexander. 2017. Measuring and comparing QoE and simulator sickness of omnidirectional videos in different head mounted displays. In Proc. of International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX’17).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. [65] Singla Ashutosh, Goring Steve, Raake Alexander, Meixner Britta, Koenen Rob, and Buchholz Thomas. 2019. Subjective quality evaluation of tile-based streaming for omnidirectional videos. In Proc. of ACM Conference on Multimedia Systems (MMSys’19). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. [66] Sodagar Iraj. 2011. The MPEG-DASH standard for multimedia streaming over the Internet. IEEE Multimedia 18, 4 (2011), 62–67. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. [67] Song Wei, Xiao Yao, Tjondronegoro Dian, and Liotta Antonio. 2015. QoE modeling for VP9 and H.265 videos on mobile devices. In Proc. of ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM’15). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. [68] Spearman Charles. 1904. The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology 15, 1 (1904), 72–101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. [69] Tcha-Tokey Katy, Loup-Escande Emilie, Christmann Olivier, and Richir Simon. 2016. A questionnaire to measure the user experience in immersive virtual environments. In Proc. of ACM Virtual Reality International Conference (VRIC’16). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. [70] Technologies Unity. 2020. SteamVR Plugin. Retrieved January 22, 2020, from https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/tools/integration/steamvr-plugin-32647.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. [71] Trejkaz. 2020. Equi-Angular Cubemap Skybox for Unity. Retrieved August 11, 2020, from https://github.com/trejkaz/EACSkyboxShader.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. [72] Tucker Izabela. 2011. Perceptual Video Quality Dimensions. Master’s thesis. Technische, Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. [73] Unity 2020. Unity. Retrieved May 22, 2020, from https://unity3d.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. [74] Upenik Evgeniy, Rerabek Martin, and Ebrahimi Touradj. 2016. Testbed for subjective evaluation of omnidirectional visual content. In Proc. of Picture Coding Symposium (PCS’16).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. [75] Upenik Evgeniy, Rerabek Martin, and Ebrahimi Touradj. 2017. On the performance of objective metrics for omnidirectional visual content. In Proc. of International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX’17).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. [76] Varela Martín, Skorin-Kapov Lea, and Ebrahimi Touradj. 2014. Quality of service versus quality of experience. In Quality of Experience, Moller Sebastian and Editors Alexander Raake (Eds.). Springer US, Chapter 6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  77. [77] Viitanen Marko, Koivula Ari, Lemmetti Ari, Yla-Outinen Arttu, Vanne Jarno, and Hamalainen Timo D.. 2016. Kvazaar: Open-Source HEVC/H.265 Encoder. In Proc. of ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM’16). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. [78] Vlahovic Sara, Suznjevic Mirko, and Skorin-Kapov Lea. 2018. Subjective assessment of different locomotion techniques in virtual reality environments. In Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX’18).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  79. [79] Wang Hui, Nguyen Vu-Thanh, Ooi Wei Tsang, and Chan Mun Choon. 2014. Mixing tile resolutions in tiled video: A perceptual quality assessment. In Proc. of ACM Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video (NOSSDAV’14). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. [80] Weier Martin, Roth Thorsten, Kruijff Ernst, Hinkenjann André, Pérard-Gayot Arsène, Slusallek Philipp, and Li Yongmin. 2016. Foveated real-time ray tracing for head-mounted displays. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 35. Wiley Online Library, 289–298. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. [81] Weymouth Frank W.. 1958. Visual sensory units and the minimal angle of resolution. Elsevier American Journal of Ophthalmology 46, 1 (1958), 102–113.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. [82] Xie Lan, Xu Zhimin, Ban Yixuan, Zhang Xinggong, and Guo Zongming. 2017. 360ProbDASH: Improving QoE of 360 Video streaming using Tile-Based HTTP adaptive streaming. In Proc. of ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM’17). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. [83] Xie Shaowei, Xu Yiling, Qian Qiaojian, Shen Qiu, Ma Zhan, and Zhang Wenjun. 2018. Modeling the perceptual impact of viewport adaptation for immersive video. In Proc. of IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS’18).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. [84] Yao Shun-Huai, Fan Ching-Ling, and Hsu Cheng-Hsin. 2019. Towards quality-of-experience models for watching 360° videos in head-mounted virtual reality. In Proc. of International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX’19).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  85. [85] Yu Matt, Lakshman Haricharan, and Girod Bernd. 2015. Content adaptive representations of omnidirectional videos for cinematic virtual reality. In Proc. of ACM International Workshop on Immersive Media Experiences (ImmersiveMe’15). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Modeling the User Experience of Watching 360° Videos with Head-Mounted Displays

      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

      • 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

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 27 January 2022
        • Accepted: 1 April 2021
        • Revised: 1 February 2021
        • Received: 1 August 2020
        Published in tomm Volume 18, Issue 1

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Full Text

      View this article in Full Text.

      View Full Text

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format
      About Cookies On This Site

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

      Learn more

      Got it!