4.6 Article

The influence of human factors on 360° mulsemedia QoE

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102550

关键词

360 degrees Mulsemedia; QoE; Virtual reality; Human factors; Age; Gender; Prior experience; Smell sensitivity

资金

  1. Horizon 2020 project NEWTON [ICT-688503]
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior Brasil (CAPES) [88881.187844/2018-01, 88882.317673/2019-01]
  3. Federal Institute of Espirito Santo

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the impact of human factors on 360 degrees mulsemedia QoE, revealing the potential for enriching experiences for Generation Z and the influence of user preferences on dynamic videos on the evaluation of 360 degrees mulsemedia experiences.
Quality of Experience (QoE) is indelibly linked to the human side of the multimedia experience. Surprisingly, however, there is a paucity of research which explores the impact that human factors has in determining QoE. Whilst this is true of multimedia, it is even more starkly so as far as mulsemedia applications that involve media engaging three or more of human senses - is concerned. Hence, in the study reported in this paper, we focus on an exciting subset of mulsemedia applications - 360 degrees mulsemedia particularly important given that the upcoming 5G technology is foreseen to be a key enabler for the proliferation of immersive Virtual Reality (VR) applications. Accordingly, we study the impact that human factors such as gender, age, prior computing experience, and smell sensitivity have on 360 degrees mulsemedia QoE. Results showed insight into the potential of 360 degrees mulsemedia to inspire and to enrich experiences for Generation Z - a generation empowered by rapidly advancing technology. Patterns of prior media usage and smell sensitivity play also an important role in influencing the QoE evaluation users who have a preference for dynamic videos enjoy and find realistic the 360 degrees mulsemedia experiences.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据