scholarly journals Quality of Experience Comparison of Stereoscopic 3D Videos in Different Projection Devices: Flat Screen, Panoramic Screen and Virtual Reality Headset

IEEE Access ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
Siu-Ming Choy ◽  
Eva Cheng ◽  
Richardt H. Wilkinson ◽  
Ian Burnett ◽  
Michael W. Austin
2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (12) ◽  
pp. 218-1-218-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kjell Brunnström ◽  
Elijs Dima ◽  
Mattias Andersson ◽  
Mårten Sjöström ◽  
Tahir Qureshi ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 210537
Author(s):  
Joan Llobera ◽  
Alejandro Beacco ◽  
Ramon Oliva ◽  
Gizem Şenel ◽  
Domna Banakou ◽  
...  

Virtual reality applications depend on multiple factors, for example, quality of rendering, responsiveness, and interfaces. In order to evaluate the relative contributions of different factors to quality of experience, post-exposure questionnaires are typically used. Questionnaires are problematic as the questions can frame how participants think about their experience and cannot easily take account of non-additivity among the various factors. Traditional experimental design can incorporate non-additivity but with a large factorial design table beyond two factors. Here, we extend a previous method by introducing a reinforcement learning (RL) agent that proposes possible changes to factor levels during the exposure and requires the participant to either accept these or not. Eventually, the RL converges on a policy where no further proposed changes are accepted. An experiment was carried out with 20 participants where four binary factors were considered. A consistent configuration of factors emerged where participants preferred to use a teleportation technique for navigation (compared to walking-in-place), a full-body representation (rather than hands only), the responsiveness of virtual human characters (compared to being ignored) and realistic compared to cartoon rendering. We propose this new method to evaluate participant choices and discuss various extensions.


2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Shahid Anwar ◽  
Jing Wang ◽  
Asad Ullah ◽  
Wahab Khan ◽  
Sadique Ahmad ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 8501-8509
Author(s):  
Yangxuan ◽  
Zhaoqianjing

In the last few years, the construction industry’s primary energydem and in developed economies accounted for 30%–40%, and technological innovation is considered to be an urgent need for the transformation and upgrading of the construction industry. New technological innovations are continually changing the way the construction industry is implemented. In the construction industry, artificial intelligence is beginning to change all aspects of the construction industry, in the field of equipment planning, overall layout, safety, management and other fields have caused many changes. The integration of new technologies has revolutionized the traditional construction industry, such as virtual reality technology and 3D printing technology. In this work, we propose a categorization for assessing Virtual reality and 3D printing of Architectural Innovation on the basis of quality of experience (QoE) metric Evaluation of virtual environment using Fuzzy Logic (FL) System. The simulation result is analysed based on the comparative analysis of user experience with Fuzzy logic estimation for perception of virtual environment. The result analysis validated that the proposed FL system replicates the user valuation for architecture innovation applications more precisely and accurately thus FL is efficient method for predicting the inclusive QoE of a virtual reality and 3D printing. This paper will recapitulate the expansion of the two techniques in the manufacture engineering, demeanor examination on the presentation of diverse skills in architectural innovation, as well as explain through real cases how these two techniques have an influence on the improvement of the manufacture engineering. Simultaneously, this paper discourses the limitations of technology mixing and put advancing opinions on the future development of the manufactureengineering.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 (14) ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kjell Brunnström ◽  
Mårten Sjöström ◽  
Muhammad Imran ◽  
Magnus Pettersson ◽  
Mathias Johanson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document