Quality of Experience in the Multimedia Internet of Things: Definition and practical use-cases
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The pentagram model is based on five factors: integrality, retainability, availability, usability, and instantaneousness.
“This pentagram model is based on five factors (integrality, retainability, availability, usability, and instantaneousness).”
From QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions (2021) · cites this paper as [42]
In [42], authors measure the QoE of a teleconsultation application called Psiconnect using an approach based on the pentagram model.
“One such work is [42], in which authors measure the QoE of teleconsultation application called Psiconnect using an approach that is based on pentagram model.”
From QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions (2021) · cites this paper as [42]
Cites
The Internet of Things: A survey
Atzori, L., Iera, A., & Morabito, G. (2010) · Computer Networks · doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2010.05.010 · Cited by 15,613 · see citing works
Self-citationInternet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions
Gubbi, J., Buyya, R., Marusic, S., & Palaniswami, M. (2013) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2013.01.010 · Cited by 12,293 · see citing works
Internet of things: Vision, applications and research challenges
Miorandi, D., Sicari, S., Pellegrini, F. D., & Imrich Chlamtac, A. (2012) · Ad Hoc Networks · doi:10.1016/j.adhoc.2012.02.016 · Cited by 3,629 · see citing works
Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience
Callet, P. L., Möller, S., Perkis, A., Brunnstrom, K. E., Beker, S., Moor, K. D., Dooms, A., Egger, S., Garcia, M.-N., Hoßfeld, T., et al. (2013) · HAL · Cited by 692 · see citing works
Cognitive internet of things: A new paradigm beyond connection
Wu, Q., Ding, G., Xu, Y., Feng, S., Du, Z., Wang, J., & Long, K. (2014) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2014.2311513 · Cited by 550 · see citing works
A survey of Internet-of-Things: Future vision, architecture, challenges and services
Singh, D., Tripathi, G., & Jara, A. J. (2014) · IEEE World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT) · doi:10.1109/wf-iot.2014.6803174 · Cited by 511 · see citing works
QoS-Aware Scheduling of Services-Oriented Internet of Things
Li, L., Li, S., & Zhao, S. (2014) · IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics · doi:10.1109/tii.2014.2306782 · Cited by 251 · see citing works
Duan, R., Chen, X., & Xing, T. (2011) · doi:10.1109/ithings/cpscom.2011.125 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Addressing un-interoperability issues in QoE models: Is a layered modelling effective?
Floris, A., Atzori, L., & Ginesu, G. (2014) · IEEE International Conference on Communications workshops · doi:10.1109/iccw.2014.6881258 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Self-citationActuator quality in the Internet of Things
Aráuz, J., & Fynn-Cudjoe, T. (2013) · doi:10.1109/sahcn.2013.6644957 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Actuator quality in the Internet of Things
Aráuz, J., & Fynn-Cudjoe, T. (2013) · doi:10.1109/iot-nc.2013.6694051 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Internet of Things (IoT): A review of enabling technologies, challenges, and open research issues
Čolaković, A., & Hadžialić, M. (2018) · Computer Networks · doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2018.07.017 · Cited by 825 · see citing works
QoE Management of Multimedia Streaming Services in Future Networks: A Tutorial and Survey
Barakabitze, A. A., Barman, N., Ahmad, A., Zadtootaghaj, S., Sun, L., Martini, M. G., & Atzori, L. (2020) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2019.2958784 · Cited by 239 · see citing works
Self-citationEdge Computing Framework for Cooperative Video Processing in Multimedia IoT Systems
Long, C., Cao, Y., Jiang, T., & Zhang, Q. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Multimedia · doi:10.1109/tmm.2017.2764330 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions
Fizza, K., Banerjee, A., Mitra, K., Jayaraman, P. P., Ranjan, R., Patel, P., & Georgakopoulos, D. (2021) · Discover Internet of Things · doi:10.1007/s43926-021-00006-7 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
“In [42], authors proposed a layered model for multimedia IoT applications (MIoT).”
BackgroundA framework of scalable QoE modeling for application explosion in the Internet of Things
Ikeda, Y., Kouno, S., Shiozu, A., & Noritake, K. (2016) · 2016 IEEE 3rd World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT) · doi:10.1109/wf-iot.2016.7845393 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Measuring QoE of a Teleconsultation App in Mental Health Using a Pentagram Model
de la Torre Díez, I., Alonso, S. G., Cruz, E. M., & Franco, M. A. (2019) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-019-1342-1 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Floris, A., & Atzori, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Cagliari (IT)
- Venue
- 2015 IEEE International Conference on Communication Workshop (ICCW)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2015-06
- Pages
- 1747-1752
- OpenAlex
- W1509310252
- Cited by
- 62
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 2.46
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- UNICA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Cagliari) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Video Quality Assessment
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › IoT and Edge/Fog Computing
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Multimedia Communication and Technology
- Keywords
- quality of experience, IoT applications, subjective quality assessment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
