See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/278675919

Quality of Experience in the Multimedia Internet of Things: Definition and

practical use-cases

Conference Paper · June 2015

DOI: 10.1109/ICCW.2015.7247433

CITATIONS READS

41 1,456

2 authors:

Alessandro Floris Luigi Atzori

Università degli studi di Cagliari Università degli studi di Cagliari
33 PUBLICATIONS   411 CITATIONS    256 PUBLICATIONS   14,903 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CFP: Special Issue "Big Data Analytics in the Internet of Things: Architectures, Emerging Trends and Open Challenges" View project

Smart State Estimation exploiting IoT architectures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alessandro Floris on 18 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Quality of Experience in the Multimedia
Internet of Things: definition and practical use-
cases
Alessandro Floris, Luigi Atzori
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering (DIEE), University of Cagliari
Cagliari, 09123, Italy
alessandro.floris@diee.unica.it, l.atzori@ieee.org
Abstract—In this paper, a first approach for evaluating the
Quality of Experience (QoE) for IoT (Internet of Things)
applications is presented. Firstly, a layered IoT architecture is
analysed to understand which QoE influence factors have to be
considered in relevant application scenarios. Secondly, we
introduce the concept of Multimedia IoT (MIoT) and define a
layered QoE model aimed at evaluating and combining the
contributions of each influence factor to estimate the overall QoE
in MIoT applications. Finally, we present a vehicular MIoT
application that has been used to conduct subjective quality
assessments to verify the performance of the proposed approach.
Index Terms—Quality of Experience, Internet of Things.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE Internet of Things (IoT) is a world-wide network of
interconnected objects uniquely addressable, based on
standard communication protocols. The IoT extends the
conventional concept of the Internet as an infrastructure
network reaching out to end-users’ terminals, to a concept of
interconnected objects forming pervasive computing
environments. IoT evolved in the last years, involving at first
Radio-Frequency IDentification (RFID) technology, then
sensors, actuators and Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN), up
to the connection of any object, anywhere and anytime.
As each telecommunications service, also IoT applications
have to be evaluated, in order to measure the quality provided
to the end-users who use the application. While a few studies
proposed QoS evaluation models for IoT applications, to the
best of the authors’ knowledge no studies take on the QoE
evaluation of IoT applications. In telecommunications, the
Quality of Experience (QoE) aims at evaluating how end-users
subjectively perceive the quality of an application or a service.
Being user-centric, the QoE provides a more holistic
understanding of the system’s influence factors than
technology-centric measures such as the Quality of Service
(QoS).
In this paper, a first approach for evaluating the QoE for
IoT applications is presented. Firstly, a layered IoT
This work has been partially funded by the Regione Autonoma della
Sardegna, P.O.R. FESR 2007-2013 6.2.1.a, within the project SocialMobility
(C.U.P. F25C10001420008).
architecture is analysed to understand which QoE influence
factors have to be considered in relevant application scenarios.
Secondly, we introduce the concept of Multimedia IoT (MIoT)
and define a layered QoE model aimed at evaluating and
combining the contributions of each influence factor to
estimate the overall QoE in MIoT applications. Finally, we
present a vehicular MIoT application that has been used to
conduct subjective quality assessments to verify the
performance of the proposed approach.
In section II, a background on IoT is provided. In section III
the Multimedia Internet of Things (MIoT) is defined, whereas
in section IV the proposed layered QoE model for MIoT
applications is presented. In section V, a MIoT vehicle
application for conducting experimental evaluations is
proposed. Section VI and VII discuss the experimental
evaluations and relevant results, respectively. Finally, section
VIII concludes the paper.
II. BACKGROUND
The Internet of Things (IoT) refers to a network of
interconnected objects which are able to acquire information
from the physical world and to make this information
available on the Internet. It is possible to basically identify
three generations of IoT on the basis of the involved
technologies [1]. The first generation was developed around
the RFID tags, which were typically used for monitoring,
logistics and tracking applications. The second generation was
enhanced by sensors and actuators, which permitted to acquire
various physical characteristics from the real world and
brought to the birth of WSNs [2]. The third and present IoT
generation is mostly developed around the association of a
Virtual Object (VO) to each Real World Object (RWO),
which is then part of the IoT, with the aim of virtualizing its
functionalities. Everyday physical objects become “smart”
objects and are integrated within the global resulting cyber-
physical infrastructure [3]. Furthermore, the information and
application storage and computing have been moved to the
cloud.
A. IoT Architecture
Currently, there is no reference IoT architecture common to
the different proposed platforms. Still, one representative
model for the third generation is the iCore solution drafted in
[4]. From this a five-layer model can be extracted:
1. Physical and communication layer: refers to the
sensing devices of the IoT that are the RWOs;
2. Virtualization layer: creates the VOs which virtualize
the functionalities of the associated RWOs;
3. Aggregation layer: has the task to combine various
VOs in order to create Composite Virtual Objects
(CVOs) capable of providing a determined service
that a single VO cannot accomplish;
4. Servitization layer: creates a link between a product
and a set of remote functionalities that augment the
capabilities and the properties of the product;
5. Applications layer: accounts for the various IoT
applications, exporting all the system’s
functionalities to the final user.
B. IoT Applications
A huge number of IoT applications have been developed for
different objectives and services. Generally, as in [1, 2, 3, 5],
IoT applications are classified on the basis of the domain of
utilization. The main domains are: Healthcare, Personal and
social, Smart home/Smart building, Smart City, Smart grid
and smart metering, Smart environment, Transportation, Smart
business/inventory and logistics, Security and surveillance.
For some of these applications the QoE management is not
of interest, as the user is not always the recipient of the
services. Indeed, if the application output is received by
another system, then the performance of the application can be
evaluated through a classical QoS-based approach. In fact, the
objective of the QoE modelling activity is to have total control
of the delivered service as perceived by the end-user to
optimize the quality while controlling the utilized resources of
each system component (in the IoT platform for the interest of
this work). Additionally, in this work we are interested in the
evaluation of the QoE for applications where the multimedia
content has a major role.
QoE requirements can be very different with respect to the
considered IoT application domain; furthermore, QoE
requirements can also be different among IoT applications
belonging to the same IoT domain. This is also shown in Fig.
1, where we show the distribution of IoT applications which
are representative for each IoT domain. These are placed on
the picture on the basis of the type of information they manage
(multimedia or non-multimedia content), and of the type of
end-user orientation (person or system oriented). Person
oriented IoT application means that people have a
fundamental rule on the evaluation of the IoT application,
since they are the end-users who benefit from the information
and contents provided by the IoT application. On the other
hand, system oriented IoT application refers to those
applications which automatically acquire, control and manage
data in order to do specific tasks and take specific decisions.
In these applications human intervention and evaluation are
not essential.
C. Quality evaluation in the IoT
Not many studies exist concerning QoE evaluation for the
IoT. In [6], the authors focused on the perceived quality in
actuators connected to the IoT. They developed a test-bed
which consisted of a electro-mechanical arm controlled over a
packet switched unreliable link by direct current motors along
with gear boxes that enable movement in several degrees of
freedom. The experiment required users to direct a fixed laser
attached to the fixed arm’s grabber towards a set of targets
located on the vertical plane at fixed distance from the arm.
The experimental factors were the average one way delay, the
packet loss, and the number of degrees of freedom. From the
subjective quality assessment results the authors defined a
QoE model that estimates the QoE in function of the
considered experimental parameters. In [7], the authors
defined the Cognitive Internet of Things (CIoT), a new
network paradigm where physical and virtual things or objects
are interconnected and behave as agents, with minimum
human intervention. The CIoT framework includes a service
evaluation layer to evaluate the services and feedback the
evaluation result to the cognition process. This layer has to
measure three different qualities: i) Quality of Data (QoD),
which aims to evaluate the quality of sensed data, the process
of data acquiring and the possible data distribution at the
perception/sensing stage; ii) Quality of Information (QoI),
which concerns the information that meets a specific user’s
need at a specific time, place, physical location, and social
setting, climbing the protocol stack through the applications
layer to a postulated user layer; iii) Quality of Experience
(QoE), which is evaluated from factors in four levels: Access,
Communication, Computation, and Application.
Fig. 1 Classification of IoT applications on the basis of the type of
information they manage (multimedia or non-multimedia content) and of the
type of recipient (person or system oriented).
While [7] considered both QoS and QoE parameters, [8, 9]
only focused on QoS evaluation. In fact, the authors defined
an IoT architecture composed of three layers: sensing,
networking and application; in each layer, a QoS monitoring
module manages the resource allocation in function of the
measured QoS metrics. In particular, the sensing layer
accounts for the QoS parameters of the sensing networks and
devices such as information accuracy, sensing precision,
energy consumption, etc. The network layer accounts for the
QoS parameters of the networks through which the IoT
services are provided, such as bandwidth, delay, throughput,
coverage, etc. Finally, in the application layer the QoS metrics
of web services are considered, such as the service perform
cost, the perform time, the load, the reliability, etc. Although
QoS parameters are important on the performance evaluation
of an IoT platform, they should be considered in function of
the quality perceived by the end-user and not only as a
fulfilment of Service Level Agreements.
III. MULTIMEDIA INTERNET OF THINGS
The emerging categories of IoT objects tend to be mobile,
multi-sensorial and smart, such as wearable sensors,
smartphones, and smart vehicles, bringing also to an increase
of multimedia content in the IoT. Multimedia content refers to
a combination of two or more different media contents such as
text, audio, image, video, etc. In section II we defined the IoT
as a network of interconnected objects which are able of
acquiring some information from the physical world and make
this information available on the Internet. Consequently,
Multimedia IoT (MIoT) can be considered as a “network of
interconnected objects capable to acquire multimedia contents
from the real world and/or present information in a
multimedia way. We also define multimedia objects as
“objects capable to acquire multimedia contents from the
physical world, being equipped with multimedia devices such
as cameras and microphones”.
In the MIoT, three scenarios can be distinguished on the
basis of the use of the multimedia content:
1. Multimedia as IoT input: the multimedia content is
acquired by multimedia objects and it is used by an IoT
application to provide a determined service;
2. Multimedia as IoT output: IoT objects acquire signals,
data and information (non-multimedia content) that are
presented in a multimedia way by an IoT application;
3. Multimedia as IoT input and output: the multimedia
content is acquired by multimedia objects and it is
presented in a multimedia way by an IoT application.
Fig. 2 Orange: scenario of an IoT application that presents in a multimedia
way information acquired by multimedia objects. Red: scenario of an IoT
application using information acquired by multimedia objects. Green: scenario
of an IoT application that presents in a multimedia way information acquired
by IoT objects (non-multimedia).
The first scenario is represented by the use-cases depicted
in Fig. 2 (red), where a camera records some images of people
who want to enter in a place where the entrance is allowed
only to authorized persons. The images recorded by the
camera are then sent to an IoT platform where an application
is deployed that consists in an identification software which
has to determine if the person recorded by the camera is
authorized to enter to that place. Once the software identifies
the person, a command is sent to the door actuator to open the
door. Otherwise the door stays closed and the access is denied.
Fig. 2 (green) illustrates the second scenario. Various IoT
objects measure some medical parameters of a patient (e.g.
temperature, pulse, pressure, etc.) which are collected by the
IoT platform. This application has the task to present the status
of the patient in a multimedia way, for example by using
graphs, animation, alarms, etc. Finally, Fig. 2 (orange) shows
the last case. Some surveillance cameras record images and
audio of a place. This multimedia information is collected by
an IoT application and presented in a multimedia way (videos,
audios) in order to provide a remote security control service.
IV. LAYERED MODELLING FOR IOT APPLICATIONS
In the Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of
Experience [10], the QoE is defined as “the degree of delight
or annoyance of the user of an application or service. It
results from the fulfilment of his or her expectations with
respect to the utility and/or enjoyment of the application or
service in the light of the user’s personality and current state”.
Accordingly, in the ITU-T Rec. P.10 [11], QoE is defined as
“the overall acceptability of an application or service, as
perceived subjectively by the end user.”
Such definitions of QoE are valid for general
telecommunications applications and services, therefore they
can be also extended to IoT applications. However, currently
there is no reference model for evaluating the QoE of IoT
applications, probably due to the lack of a reference IoT
architecture and to the different requirements of IoT
applications belonging to different domains of utilization.
Therefore, on the basis of the MIoT definition presented in
section III, we propose a layered QoE model capable of
evaluating the QoE of MIoT applications in the scenarios of
multimedia as IoT output and multimedia as IoT input and
output, in which people are involved as the end-users of the
multimedia content.
Conceptually, we mainly based on the layered QoE model
proposed in [12] for evaluating the QoE of a multimedia
communication system. In fact, layered approaches are widely
used in networking for their functionality, such as the TCP/IP
and OSI networking models. Within each layer, a well-defined
set of network services are provided, which are in turn
implemented utilizing the services provided by the previous
layers. At the lower layers, services tend to be simple and
efficient. As successively higher layers are considered,
functions become gradually more complex. Following this
layered approach, each layer must be defined together with its
area of competence. Furthermore, each layer must be able to
be combined with its upper and lower layers in order to build a
model in which the outcome of a layer can be interpreted and
then gradually enhanced by higher layers. For such reason,
interfaces between layers should be accurately defined.
Therefore, each layer of the proposed QoE model analyses
a specific QoE domain (set of factors), so that the overall
quality can be computed as a combination of all domains. The
proposed model is meant to be as general as possible, so to be
valid for, or at least adaptable to, any scenario.
Fig. 3 Layered QoE model for MIoT applications.
The proposed layered QoE model is shown in Fig. 3. It is
composed of five layers: the Physical devices layer, the
Network layer, the Combination layer, the Application layer,
and finally the Context layer.
A. Physical devices layer
The Physical devices layer accounts for the quality provided
by the the physical objects. Such quality depends on objective
measures of the objects’ performance that influence the QoE
perceived by the user. On the basis of the type of object, these
measures can include QoS and/or Quality of Data (QoD)
parameters. For example, the performance of a GPS receiver
that acquires the position of an object or a person can be
determined by measuring the accuracy and precision of the
acquired position, which is the QoD. On the other hand, the
quality of a video sequence recorded by a camera can be
evaluated by both QoD and QoS parameters. For instance, the
QoD accounts for the image resolution whereas the QoS
considers the video coding distortion.
B. Network layer
The Network layer accounts for the performance of the
network infrastructure on which the IoT platform is based. In
this layer, typical QoS parameters capable of measuring the
performance of information transmission are considered, such
as delay, packet loss, jitter, etc. The influence of these
parameters on the QoE is taken into account.
C. Combination layer
The Combination layer includes the Virtual Objects (VO)
and the Composite Virtual Objects (CVO), which are in the
cloud. Each VO communicates directly with the physical
object that it virtualizes and evaluates its quality; such quality
depends on the object’s characteristics and should be related to
the QoE perceived by the user through a mathematical model.
The CVO is composed of various VOs with the aim of
combining their functionalities to provide a determined
service. The CVO is provided with a mathematical model
which combines and weighs the qualities provided by each
VO in order to evaluate the overall QoE provided to the user.
D. Application layer
The Application layer considers the QoE provided by MIoT
applications in terms of control, interactivity, presentation and
usability. In fact, independently from the quality of the
multimedia content provided by the application, the quality
perceived by the end-users is also influenced by the way the
contents are presented to the user, the application interface, the
degree of interactivity and the usability of the application.
E. Context layer
Finally, the upper layer accounts for the Context of use,
which concerns many different factors as the device on which
the application is used (technical), the people with which the
end-user consumes the application (social), the application
costs (business), the place where the application is used
(environmental), etc.
V. IOT VEHICLE APPLICATION
In order to conduct experimental evaluations, an IoT
vehicle application for remote tutoring of driving school
lessons has been developed. The objective of this application
is to show in a multimedia way and in real-time the state and
the position of the vehicles used for driving lessons, as well as
a video of the roads travelled by these vehicles. In this way,
the vehicles used by the driving instructors for teaching
driving lessons to the students can be remotely controlled.
Fig. 4 shows the framework developed for collecting the
vehicle information needed by the IoT vehicle application,
which is composed of an Arduino Mega 2560 [13], the Telit
UE910-EUR and SL869 modules [14], and a camera. The
Arduino Mega 2560 is an open-source electronics platform
based on easy-to-use hardware and software. It is connected to
the On-Board Diagnostic interface (OBD-II) of the vehicle by
using an OBD-II adapter. In this way, the Arduino is able to
acquire vehicle parameters, such as vehicle speed, engine
revolutions per minute, oil temperature, etc. The Telit SL869
module [14] is provided with a Global Positioning System
(GPS), and it acquires the position coordinates of the vehicle
with current date and time. The Telit UE910-EUR module
receives the vehicles parameters from the Arduino via Serial
Peripheral Interface (SPI), and the position coordinates of the
vehicle from the SL869 via serial interface; therefore, being
provided with 3G connection, it sends the received vehicle
information to the cloud where the IoT platform is developed.
The Telit UE910-EUR module is not equipped with sensors,
but it has the rule of network interface through which the
Arduino and the Telit SL869 module are able to send their
acquired parameters to the IoT platform. Simultaneously, the
camera installed into the vehicle cabin records and sends to
the IoT platform the video of the road travelled by the vehicle.
The IoT platform is in the cloud and, for this application,
includes three VOs and a CVO. Each VO has the task to
acquire the data provided by the physical object that it
virtualizes and to evaluate its quality. The CVO receives the
data acquired by the VOs, and analyses and synchronizes the
vehicle and camera data (the images recorded by the camera
are tagged with date and time), which are then shown in a
multimedia way to the users on a web application. Precisely,
the web IoT application shows in a web page a video of the
road travelled by the vehicle, a map in which is shown the
vehicle position (highlighted with a moving red circle), and
the speed and revolutions per minute (rpm) of the vehicle. The
CVO has also the task to estimate and control the overall
quality provided by the application. It must be able to define a
mathematical model which weighs the single contributions
provided by the VOs and estimates the overall QoE provided instance, the speed and rpm indicators suddenly show wrong
to the end user. values whereas the vehicle position is indicated out of the
road. These corruptions simulate data inaccuracy of the
sensing objects. Finally, the speed and rpm values were
presented to the users both textually and graphically (with
gauges).
In the proposed assessment, 24 people, 20 males and 4
females, were asked to rate the 12 TCs. The assessment started
with a pre-test phase, during which the user was provided with
short written instructions and with a brief detailed oral
explanation. Furthermore, some TCs were shown in order to
give each user an overview of the video qualities and data
corruptions involved in the experiment. The device employed
for the subjective quality assessment was a notebook with a
LCD display with a resolution of 1440x900 pixels.
For subjective tests, the specifications given in [15] have
been adopted. Specifically, the single-stimulus Absolute
Category Rating (ACR) method has been adopted, which
Fig. 4 Framework of the IoT vehicle application for remote tutoring of driving
school lessons. consists in presenting the TCs one at a time and allowing for
their independent evaluation on a category scale. The
VI. EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATIONS following five-level ITU scale for rating overall quality has
The experimental evaluations consist on conducting a been used: 5 stars (Excellent), 4 stars (Good), 3 stars (Fair), 2
subjective quality assessment for evaluating the QoE stars (Poor), 1 star (Bad). The parameters which the user had
perceived by the users using the IoT application for remote to consider in the subjective evaluations were: i) the video
tutoring of driving school lessons. The data collected for the quality; ii) the synchronization and accuracy of the vehicle
experimental evaluations were the video sequences of the road position and of the speed and rpm values with respect to the
travelled by the vehicle, and the GPS, speed and rpm data of video; iii) the overall visualization of the vehicle information.
the vehicle. Table I summarizes the Test Conditions (TCs) The assessment has been carried out in a 15 minute-long
which have been chosen to conduct the subjective assessment. session. The IoT application TCs were displayed on the
TABLE I TEST CONDITIONS (TCS). Google Chrome browser in full-screen mode while each
Video bitrate Speed/RPM Speed/RPM subject was wearing earphones. Each TC lasted for 40s. A
TC Video Map
(kbps) values visualization rating page was automatically displayed after the end of each
1 Video 1 1500 Sync Sync Gauge TC, where each subject had to select a discrete value between
2 Video 2 1500 Sync Sync Text 1 and 5 indicating the overall quality of the IoT application
3 Video 3 1500 Desync Desync Gauge
just shown. The voting phase was not time-limited and after
4 Video 4 1500 Desync Desync Text
each vote the subjects were asked to confirm their choice.
5 Video 5 1500 Inaccurate Inaccurate Gauge
Upon confirmation, a ten-second pause was imposed, then the
6 Video 6 1500 Inaccurate Inaccurate Text
7 Video 1 700 Sync Sync Gauge
next TC would be automatically activated. Such automatic
8 Video 2 700 Sync Sync Text procedure was iterated for all the 12 TCs. The presentation
9 Video 3 700 Desync Desync Gauge order of the TCs has been randomized for each subject.
10 Video 4 700 Desync Desync Text
VII. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
11 Video 5 700 Inaccurate Inaccurate Gauge
12 Video 6 700 Inaccurate Inaccurate Text Mean Opinion Scores (MOS) have been computed for each
TC, together with the 95% confidence interval. MOS results
The parameters chosen to create the TCs are the video
show that video quality does not influence very much the QoE
bitrate, the synchronization and accuracy of the vehicle data, of the IoT application. In fact, being equal the other
and the way the speed and rpm values are presented to the conditions, the MOS concerning TCs with low and high video
user. The video sequences, with resolution of 640x480 pixels, quality have more or less the same value, as shown in Fig. 5.
were encoded at two different bitrates: 700kbps for low video Also data presentation does not influence very much the QoE.
quality and 1.5Mbps for high video quality. TCs with Furthermore, MOS results show that the most annoying TCs
desynchronized data consist in showing desynchronized are those where wrong vehicle data are displayed. Then, the
(delayed with delay of 3s) values of GPS, speed and rpm data accuracy of the data is the most relevant parameter considered
with respect to the video shown on the IoT application. These by the end-users. Also TCs with desynchronized data annoy
corruptions simulate network delay errors and are introduced the end-users, but to a lesser extent. The most evident result is
in a way the user can notice them, for instance when the that from this IoT application the end-users expect the
vehicle is starting or stopping. TCs with inaccurate data displaying of accurate and synchronized vehicle data;
consist in showing randomly wrong values of GPS, speed and otherwise they were annoyed. On the other hand, video quality
rpm data; precisely, the 25% of the values were wrong. For and data presentation have not a great influence on the QoE.
 estimate the QoE perceived by the users on the basis of the
QoS and QoD parameters of the objects virtualized by the
VOs and of the QoS of the communication network. In this
case, the CVO can notice that the Rate parameter has
negligible influence on the QoE, and can decide to delete its
contribution from the QoE model to reduce the computation
complexity.
TABLE II VALUES OF THE COEFFICIENTS FOR BOTH THE LINEAR AND
NONLINEAR REGRESSION IN (1)-(3).
Coefficient )*+ ,*+ )-+ ,-+ ).+ ,.+
Value 0.0000 2.4306 0.0521 -2.3438 -0.1528 2.5833
Coefficient )*/+ ,*/+ )-/+ ,-/+ )./+ ,./+
Fig. 5 MOS results with 95% CI comparing low and high video qualities Value 1.0000 2.3276 1.0233 0.2752 0.9644 2.3615
being equal the other conditions.
In order to estimate the quality perceived by the user when VIII. CONCLUSIONS
using the IoT application, the influence of the video coding
In this paper, a first approach for evaluating the QoE for IoT
bitrate (Rate), the data accuracy (ACC) and the network delay applications has been presented. We introduced the concept of
(D) on the QoE have been investigated. The subjective ratings Multimedia Internet of Things (MIoT) and defined a layered
were divided in two datasets: a training dataset composed of QoE model aimed at evaluating and combining the
the ratings provided by the first 12 subjects and a validation contributions of each influence factor to estimate the overall
dataset composed of the ratings provided by the last 12 QoE in MIoT applications. To verify the performance of the
subjects. From these datasets we computed the MOST and the proposed QoE model, we developed a vehicular MIoT
MOSV values, respectively. application that has been used to conduct subjective quality
Thereafter, a linear (l) and nonlinear (nl) regression assessments. The QoE metrics derived from the layered QoE
between the considered corruption parameters and the MOST model are highly correlated with subjective results and allow
results have been computed. The coefficients obtained by to estimate and control the QoE of MIoT applications.
computing these regressions are summarized in Table II, and REFERENCES
are valid for the equations in (1)-(3). [1] L. Atzori, A. Iera, and G. Morabito, “The Internet of Things: A survey,”
Computer Networks, vol.54, no.15, pp.2787-2805, Oct. 2010.

 
  ⋅   
 
  ⋅ 
 (1) [2] J. Gubbi, R. Buyya, S. Marusic, M. Palaniswami, “Internet of Things

 
  ⋅   
 
  ⋅ 
 2
Generation Computer Systems, vol.29, no.7, pp.1645-1660, 2013.
QoE D
 a" ⋅ D  K " QoE$ D
 K "$ ⋅ a"$
% 3
things: Vision, applications and research challenges,” Ad Hoc Networks,
The equations in (1)-(3) are the models which describe the
relation between the corruptions and the QoE. By analysing
the subjective results we concluded that video quality does not
influence the QoE. The data regression confirms this result, in
fact the linear and nonlinear coefficient values for the Rate
parameter are 0 and 1, respectively. The camera VO must
know the QoE(Rate) metric that accounts for the video
quality, whereas the GPS and the vehicle VOs must know the
QoE(ACC) and QoE(D) metrics, which take into account the
influence of the data accuracy of the physical devices and of
the network delay, respectively. The CVO receives those QoE
models from the VOs and defines a composite QoE model
including all the contributions provided by the single
components. In this case, the linear and nonlinear composite
QoE models are as follows:
(IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions,” Future
[3] D. Miorandi, S. Sicari, F. De Pellegrini, and I. Chlamtac, “Internet of
vol.10, no.7, pp.1497-1516, Sept. 2012.
[4] R. Minerva et al., iCore, D2.3 Architecture Reference Model, WP2 –
Cognitive Management and Control Framework for IoT, June 2013.
[5] D. Singh, G. Tripathi, and A.J. Jara, “A survey of Internet-of-Things:
Future Vision, Architecture, Challenges and Services,” IEEE World
Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), 2014, Seoul, KR, pp. 287-292.
[6] J. Arauz, and T. Fynn-Cudjoe, “Actuator Quality in the Internet of
Things,” in Proc. SECON 2013, New Orleans, LA, USA, pp. 34-42.
[7] Q. Wu, G. Ding, Y. Xu, S. Feng, Z. Du, J. Wang, and K. Long,
“Cognitive Internet of Things: A New Paradigm Beyond Connection,”
IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol.1, no.2, pp.129-143, April 2014.
[8] L. Li, S. Li, and S. Zhao, “QoS-Aware Scheduling of Services-Oriented
Internet of Things,” IEEE Trans. on Industrial Informatics, vol.10, no.2,
pp.1947-1505, Feb. 2014.
[9] R. Duan, X. Chen, and T. Xing, “A QoS Architecture for IoT,” in Proc.
of iThings/CPSCom, 2011, Dalian, CN pp. 717-720.
[10] Qualinet European Network on Quality of Experience in Multimedia
Systems and Services, “Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality
of Experience,” Version 1.2, 2013.
[11] Recommendation ITU-T P.10/G.100, Amendment 2, “Vocabulary for

   ⋅      ⋅     " ⋅ '  " (4) performance and quality of service,” 2008.
[12] A. Floris, L. Atzori, and G. Ginesu, “Addressing un-Interoperability

   ⋅ 
 ⋅  ⋅ 
 ⋅ " ⋅ "
( (5) Issues in QoE Models: Is a Layered Modelling Effective?,” in Proc. ICC
2014, Sidney, AU, pp. 563-568.
Afterwards, the Pearson correlation values achieved [13] http://www.arduino.cc/
between the MOSV values and the quality indexes defined in [14] http://www.telit.com
(4)-(5) have been computed and are 0.91 and 0.86, [15] ITU-T Recommendation P.910, “Subjective video quality assessment
methods for multimedia applications,” 1999.
respectively. The same correlation values are achieved also
without considering the influence of the Rate, as expected.
Being provided with this QoE model, the CVO is able to

View publication stats