Quality of Experience Evaluation of Smart-Wearables: A Mathematical Modelling Approach
Abstract
A rapid growth in the smart-wearable industry is making it increasingly important to cater to the Quality of Experience (QoE) requirements of the end-users. In this work, we try to model the relationship between human experience and quality perception in relation to the smart-wearable segment. For this, the concepts of Quality of Data (QoD) and Quality of Information (QoI) are used. Step-counts and heart-rate measurement readings by the wearables are the parameters considered for evaluating the QoD, whereas perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and richness in information are the ones taken for evaluating the QoI. A subjective experiment comprising of 40 participants and 5 wearable devices is performed in a free-living condition in order to create the QoE model. We hypothesize QoE to be a function of QoD, and QoI and use a balanced weight technique to formulate the final model. R2and adjusted-R2values of 0.65 and 0.63 indicate a reasonable predictive power of the proposed scheme. Based upon the results appropriate recommendations are provided to the different smart-wearable vendors for improving their products, thereby ensuring a greater user-adoption.
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?
In [39], the proposed model's results show a strong correlation with subjective test results through a Pearson correlation value of 0.81.
“The results from the proposed model shows a strong correlation with the results obtained from subjective test through a Pearson correlation value of 0.81.”
From QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions (2021) · cites this paper as [39]
They modeled QoE as a weighted linear combination of Quality of Data (QoD) and Quality of Information (QoI).
“They modeled QoE as a weighted linear combination of Quality of Data (QoD) and Quality of Information (QoI).”
From QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions (2021) · cites this paper as [39]
In [39], authors proposed a QoE model based on a generic QoE equation.
“In [39], the authors proposed a QoE model based on a generic QoE equation.”
From QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions (2021) · cites this paper as [39]
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483 · see citing works
Internet 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: A Survey on Enabling Technologies, Protocols, and Applications
Al-Fuqaha, A., Guizani, M., Mohammadi, M., Aledhari, M., & Ayyash, M. (2015) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2015.2444095 · Cited by 8,630 · 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
Henriksen, A., Haugen Mikalsen, M., Woldaregay, A. Z., Muzny, M., Hartvigsen, G., Hopstock, L. A., & Grimsgaard, S. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.9157 · Cited by 542 · see citing works
Ferguson, T., Rowlands, A. V., Olds, T., & Maher, C. (2015) · International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity · doi:10.1186/s12966-015-0201-9 · Cited by 468 · see citing works
The effect of consumer innovativeness on perceived value and continuance intention to use smartwatch
Hong, J., Lin, P., & Hsieh, P.-C. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.001 · Cited by 422 · see citing works
Reliability and validity of ten consumer activity trackers
Kooiman, T. J. M., Dontje, M. L., Sprenger, S. R., Krijnen, W. P., van der Schans, C. P., & de Groot, M. (2015) · BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1186/s13102-015-0018-5 · Cited by 360 · see citing works
Validation of the Fitbit One activity monitor device during treadmill walking
Takacs, J., Pollock, C. L., Guenther, J. R., Bahar, M., Napier, C., & Hunt, M. A. (2013) · Journal of science and medicine in sport · doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2013.10.241 · Cited by 322 · see citing works
Cognitive Radio Architecture Evolution
Mitola, J. (2009) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/jproc.2009.2013012 · Cited by 289 · see citing works
(2008) · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-373558-4.x0001-5 · Cited by 287 · see citing works
Wearable technology: What explains continuance intention in smartwatches?
Nascimento, B., Oliveira, T., & Tam, C. (2018) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.03.017 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Big data in mobile social networks: a QoE-oriented framework
Su, Z., Xu, Q., & Qi, Q. (2016) · IEEE Network · doi:10.1109/mnet.2016.7389831 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
On the quality and value of information in sensor networks
Bisdikian, C. C., Kaplan, L., & Srivastava, M. B. (2013) · ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks · doi:10.1145/2489253.2489265 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Toward QoI and Energy-Efficiency in Internet-of-Things Sensory Environments
Liu, C. H., Fan, J., Branch, J. W., & Leung, K. K. (2014) · IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing · doi:10.1109/tetc.2014.2364915 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
How old are you really? Cognitive age in technology acceptance
Hong, S., Lui, C. S. M., Hahn, J., Moon, J. Y., & Kim, T. G. (2013) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2013.05.008 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Accuracy and Adoption of Wearable Technology Used by Active Citizens: A Marathon Event Field Study
Pobiruchin, M., Suleder, J., Zowalla, R., & Wiesner, M. (2017) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.6395 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Measuring the fitness of fitness trackers
Bender, C. G., Hoffstot, J. C., Combs, B. T., Hooshangi, S., & Cappos, J. (2017) · IEEE Sensors Applications Symposium (SAS) · doi:10.1109/sas.2017.7894077 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
A 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
Validity of Activity Tracker Step Counts during Walking, Running, and Activities of Daily Living
Toth, L. P., Park, S., Pittman, W. L., Sarisaltik, D., Hibbing, P. R., Morton, A. L., Springer, C. M., Crouter, S. E., & Bassett, D. R. (2018) · Translational Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1249/tjx.0000000000000057 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Accuracy of the Yamax CW-701 Pedometer for measuring steps in controlled and free-living conditions
Coffman, M. J., Reeve, C. L. L., Butler, S., Keeling, M., & Talbot, L. A. (2016) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/2055207616652526 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
On Additive and Multiplicative QoS-QoE Models for Multiple QoS Parameters
Hoßfeld, T., Skorin‐Kapov, L., Heegaard, P. E., Varela, M., & Chen, K.-T. (2016) · International Workshop on Perceptual Quality of Systems (PQS) · doi:10.21437/pqs.2016-10 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Quality Provisioning in the Internet of Things Era
Pal, D., Vanijja, V., & Vijayakumar, V. (2018) · doi:10.1145/3291280.3291790 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Self-citationModel for Mobile Online Video viewed on Samsung Galaxy Note 5
Pal, D., & Vanijja, V. (2017) · KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems · doi:10.3837/tiis.2017.11.012 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Self-citationQuality-driven human-centered approach for service provisioning in ambient environment
Hossain, M. A., & Saddik, A. E. (2008) · doi:10.1145/1462027.1462034 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 [39], the authors proposed a QoE model based on a generic QoE equation.”
BackgroundA Survey on Evaluating the Quality of Autonomic Internet of Things Applications
Fizza, K., Banerjee, A., Jayaraman, P. P., Auluck, N., Ranjan, R. K., Mitra, K., & Georgakopoulos, D. (2022) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2022.3205377 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Mathematical Framework for Wearable Devices in the Internet of Things Using Deep Learning
Mirza, O. M., Mujlid, H. M., Manoharan, H., Selvarajan, S., Srivastava, G., & Khan, M. A. (2022) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics12112750 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Guidelines for evaluating wearables’ quality of experience in a mulsemedia context
Hussain, N., & Ghinea, G. (2022) · Multimedia Tools and Applications · doi:10.1007/s11042-022-12766-7 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Defining and Assessing Quality in IoT Environments: A Survey
Sgora, A., & Chatzimisios, P. (2022) · IoT · doi:10.3390/iot3040026 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Quality of Experience in Internet of Things: A Systematic Literature Review
Sanyour, R., Abdullah, M., & Abdullah, S. (2022) · Journal on internet of things · doi:10.32604/jiot.2022.040966 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
QoIoTX: A QoE-Aware IoT Service Discovery Framework
Sanyour, R. (2024) · Journal of Electrical Systems · doi:10.52783/jes.3417
Liu, X., & Zhao, L. (2024) · International Conference on Big Data and Digital Management (ICBDDM) · doi:10.1145/3696500.3696581
Development of Mathematical Analysis for IoT Wearable Devices
Tyulepberdinova, G., Kunelbayev, M., Amirkhanova, G. A., & Slamgazy, A. (2024) · Asia Conference on Cognitive Engineering and Intelligent Interaction (CEII) · doi:10.1109/ceii65291.2024.00031
Development and Research of a Simulation Model for a Wearable Device
Tyulepberdinova, G., Issabayeva, S., Kunelbayev, M., Issabayeva, D., Amirkhanova, G. A., & Ardak, T. (2025) · Journal of Advances in Information Technology · doi:10.12720/jait.16.10.1400-1413
- Authors
- Pal, D., Triyason, T., Varadarajan, V., & Zhang, X.
- Affiliations
- King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi (TH)
- Vellore Institute of Technology University (IN)
- Wayne State University (US)
- Venue
- 2019 IEEE 35th International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2019-04
- Pages
- 74-80
- OpenAlex
- W2955233661
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 1.21
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Video Quality Assessment
- Keywords
- wearable devices, quality of experience, data quality, information quality, step counting, heart rate measurement, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, information richness, user adoption
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
