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

net/publication/274051079

Quality of experience (QoE) in multimedia applications

Article  in  SPIENewsroom · March 2013

DOI: 10.1117/2.1201302.004591

CITATIONS READS

3 174

1 author:

Andrew Perkis
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
161 PUBLICATIONS   2,126 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Immersive Media Technology Experience View project

Tangible, Spatialized Databases View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew Perkis on 24 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 10.1117/2.1201302.004591

Quality of experience (QoE) in

multimedia applications
Andrew Perkis

Quantifying and optimizing quality of experience for consumers of

multimedia content leverages developments in information and com-
munications technology.

One of the standard quality assessment methods for networked

delivery of multimedia presentations is called quality of ser-
vice (QoS), which specifically measures the throughput and
reliability of the data transmission network. However, QoS dis-
regards encoding/decoding behavior, the context in which the Figure 1. The relationship between quality of service (QoS) and quality
content is consumed, and most other characteristics of the trans- of experience (QoE) in a networked media handling system. EC: Error
mitting and receiving endpoints. In recent years, convergence of correction.
the digital media industry and the information and communica-
tions technology (ICT) industry has led to a paradigm shift away
The results are taken as ground truth and are used as a basis for
from QoS and toward a broader concept: the end-to-end metric
developing highly correlated objective metrics.3
known as quality of experience (QoE).
But because of the importance of distinguishing artifacts of
QoE considerably extends the concept of QoS (see Figure 1).
capture, media processing, and network conditions from the aes-
While QoS primarily measures the accuracy of networked
thetic quality actually intended by the creator, the recently de-
data delivery, QoE encompasses additional factors affecting the
veloped formal definition of QoE defines, models, and measures
user’s perception of multimedia presentation quality. Naturally,
quality from the point of view of both users and providers. We
quality assessments differ, but as users have come to consume
captured the results in a 2012 white paper.4 Though driven by
ever richer digital media on a progressively wider variety of
the media representation and delivery community, the defin-
devices and networks,1 their expectations have tended toward
ition incorporates elements of psychology, the social sciences,
increasingly higher quality, dependability, and security. Further-
and other fields (see Figure 3).
more, certain elements that are important to users (including
The new target of our research is immersive media, as it is our
context, network conditions, and end-user device capabilities)
contention that QoE is fully applicable to new digital media and
remain largely outside the control of the creators, owners, and
to increasingly immersive experiences. Immersive media tech-
providers of content.
nology experience (IMTE) is an emerging field that describes and
Our research has focused on addressing these conflicting is-
defines this work. Its intent is to support natural interactions
sues, many of them non-trivial, with the goal of developing a
between the user and environment by enriching traditional in-
formal definition of QoE. For example, one of the earliest works
teractive audio and visual presentations with novel modes of
on QoE defines it as a measure of the impact of content on a
interaction, such as haptics, olfactory, and taste. The goal is the
specific user in a specific context.2 This impact can be measured
digital recreation of real-world presence. Achieving this goal
through a subjective assessment, or alternatively it can be esti-
will require a multidisciplinary effort that draws from such
mated through a model based on parameters of content, specific
disciplines as media technology, ICT, and media studies, and
user, and specific context. Another early approach at modeling
QoE follows a traditional methodology (see Figure 2), in which
user perception is measured by formal subjective evaluations. Continued on next page

incorporating core competencies from fields as diverse as com-
munications, information retrieval, entertainment, and social
networks. In the context of IMTE, which follows content from
capture and representation through delivery to the user and
into the business model, QoE is seen as an overriding tool for
monitoring and managing the user experience at every interface
between adjacent model layers (see Figure 4).
The IMTE platform provides a common architecture for
studying not only network media handling but also QoS mecha-
nisms for dynamic networks, quality assessment, and the inter-
actions between all these factors. Our research relies on a cyclic
design and development process, in which each stage of the
cycle both depends on and influences the next. As might be ex-
pected, controlling quality modeling and measurements within
the IMTE framework frequently requires the design of novel
Figure 2. Objective metrics for assessing QoE from the user’s point of
view rely upon formal subjective evaluations. A/V: Audio/visual.
Figure 3. Components of QoE.
10.1117/2.1201302.004591 Page 2/3
Figure 4. The QoE toolbox affects each layer interface in the experience
model. FPS: Frames per second. GUI: Graphical user interface. HDR:
High dynamic range.
experimental content. The resulting work often bridges the gap
between technology and art. An example of this is ‘Chroma
Space,’ in which the experimental results were published as a
scientific paper5 while the content was exhibited as a piece of
art.6
The complete media technology ‘ecosystem’ considers con-
tent not merely as a bitstream for consumption but also in terms
of its social, economic, and cultural impact. QoE has become a
critical planning and operations target for providing environ-
ments, both on the move and at home, that are surrounding,
immersive, multisensory, interactive, always connected, and
seamless. Industry has taken notice, as evidenced on the exhi-
bition floors of NAB2012 and IBC2012 (the world’s two major
broadcast conventions) and in the workings of Qualinet.4 We ex-
pect that users will be most attracted to those providers who can
ensure the highest possible QoE in all devices, service, and appli-
cations. Our ongoing research encompasses the creative process,
the user, the context, and the delivery system, with special
emphasis on resource representation, digital item adaptation,
media conversion, and error resilience.
This work was supported by the Centre for Quantifiable Quality of
Service in Communication Systems, a Norwegian Centre of Excellence
appointed by the Research Council of Norway and funded by it and by
the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and UNINETT.
Continued on next page
 10.1117/2.1201302.004591 Page 3/3

Author Information

Andrew Perkis
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Trondheim, Norway

Andrew Perkis is a professor at the Norwegian University of

Science and Technology (NTNU). He earned an international
master’s in technology management in 2008. He is part of the
management of Q2S (NTNU’s Centre for Quantifiable Quality
of Service in Communication Systems), a Norwegian national
Centre of Excellence.
References
1. A. Perkis, Y. Abdeljaoued, C. Christopoulos, T. Ebrahimi, and J. Chicharo,
Universal multimedia access from wired and wireless systems, Birkhauser Boston
Trans. Circuits Syst. Sig. Process.; Special issue Multimedia Commun. 20 (3),
pp. 387–402, 2001. doi:10.1007/BF01201409
2. T. Ebrahimi, Quality of experience: a new look into quality and its im-
pact in future personal communications, Feb. 2001. http://www.slideshare.net/
touradj˙ebrahimi/Ebrahimi
3. A. Perkis, S. Munkeby, and O. I. Hillestad, A model for measuring quality of experi-
ence, Proc. 7th Nordic Sig. Process. Symp. (NORSIG 2006), pp. 198–201, Reykjavik,
Iceland, Jun. 2006. doi:10.1109/NORSIG.2006.275209
4. P. Le Callet, S. Möller, and A. Perkis, Qualinet white paper on definitions of
quality of experience (2012), Jun. 2012. http://www.qualinet.eu/images/stories
/whitepaper v1.1 dagstuhl output corrected.pdf
5. W. A. Mansilla, J. Puig, A. Perkis, and T. Ebrahimi, Chroma space: affective colors
in interactive 3D world, Proc. 18th ACM Int’l Conf. Multimedia 2010 (MM 2010),
ACM, New York, NY, Oct. 2010. doi:10.1145/1873951.1874239
6. W. A. Mansilla, J. Puig, A. Perkis, and T. Ebrahimi, Chroma space, Colorito: an
interactive renaissance of colours, ACM & Titivillus Mostre Editoria, Pisa, Italy,
Oct. 2010. Exhibition catalog.

c 2013 SPIE