The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Study of Subjective and Objective Quality Assessment of Audio-Visual Signals
Abstract
The topics of visual and audio quality assessment (QA) have been widely researched for decades, yet nearly all of this prior work has focused only on single-mode visual or audio signals. However, visual signals rarely are presented without accompanying audio, including heavy-bandwidth video streaming applications. Moreover, the distortions that may separately (or conjointly) afflict the visual and audio signals collectively shape user-perceived quality of experience (QoE). This motivated us to conduct a subjective study of audio and video (A/V) quality, which we then used to compare and develop A/V quality measurement models and algorithms. The new LIVE-SJTU Audio and Video Quality Assessment (A/V-QA) Database includes 336 A/V sequences that were generated from 14 original source contents by applying 24 different A/V distortion combinations on them. We then conducted a subjective A/V quality perception study on the database towards attaining a better understanding of how humans perceive the overall combined quality of A/V signals. We also designed four different families of objective A/V quality prediction models, using a multimodal fusion strategy. The different types of A/V quality models differ in both the unimodal audio and video quality prediction models comprising the direct signal measurements and in the way that the two perceptual signal modes are combined. The objective models are built using both existing state-of-the-art audio and video quality prediction models and some new prediction models, as well as quality-predictive features delivered by a deep neural network. The methods of fusing audio and video quality predictions that are considered include simple product combinations as well as learned mappings. Using the new subjective A/V database as a tool, we validated and tested all of the objective A/V quality prediction models. We will make the database publicly available to facilitate further research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition
He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 · Cited by 235,474
ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database
Deng, J., Dong, W., Socher, R., Li, L.-J., Li, K., & Fei-Fei, L. (2009) · 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2009.5206848 · Cited by 65,333
Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity
Wang, Z., Bovik, A. C., Sheikh, H. R., & Simoncelli, E. P. (2004) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/tip.2003.819861 · Cited by 57,892
Self-citationLIBSVM: A library for support vector machines
Chang, C.-C., & Lin, C.-J. (2011) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/1961189.1961199 · Cited by 40,918
Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment
Wang, Z., Simoncelli, E. P., & Bovik, A. C. (2004) · The Thrity-Seventh Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers, 2003 · doi:10.1109/acssc.2003.1292216 · Cited by 6,253 · cited 10×
“Likewise, auditory masking principles are well-understood, and simultaneous masking is embodied by VQA models like SSIM and MS-SSIM [8], [9].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationFSIM: A Feature Similarity Index for Image Quality Assessment
Zhang, L., Zhang, L., Mou, X., & Zhang, D. (2011) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/tip.2011.2109730 · Cited by 5,203
Image information and visual quality
Sheikh, H. R., & Bovik, A. C. (2006) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/tip.2005.859378 · Cited by 4,104
Self-citationAn Algorithm for Intelligibility Prediction of Time–Frequency Weighted Noisy Speech
Taal, C. H., Hendriks, R. C., Heusdens, R., & Jensen, J. (2011) · IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing · doi:10.1109/tasl.2011.2114881 · Cited by 2,254
CNN architectures for large-scale audio classification
Hershey, S., Chaudhuri, S., Ellis, D. P. W., Gemmeke, J. F., Jansen, A., Moore, R. C., Plakal, M., Platt, D., Saurous, R. A., Seybold, B., et al. (2017) · 2017 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) · doi:10.1109/icassp.2017.7952132 · Cited by 2,023
Evaluation of Objective Quality Measures for Speech Enhancement
Hu, Y., & Loizou, P. C. (2008) · IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing · doi:10.1109/tasl.2007.911054 · Cited by 1,830
Cited by
Perceptual video quality assessment: a survey
Min, X., Duan, H., Sun, W., Zhu, Y., & Zhai, G. (2024) · Science China Information Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11432-024-4133-3 · Cited by 218
Self-citationHuman-centered neural reasoning for subjective content processing: Hate speech, emotions, and humor
Kazienko, P., Bielaniewicz, J., Gruza, M., Kanclerz, K., Karanowski, K., Miłkowski, P., & Kocoń, J. (2023) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2023.01.010 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Min, X., Zhai, G., Zhou, J., Farias, M. C. Q., & Bovik, A. C.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Image Processing
- Published
- 2020
- Volume
- 29
- Pages
- 6054-6068
- ISSN
- 1057-7149 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-0042
- OpenAlex
- W3019533076
- Cited by
- 328
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 12.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Study of Subjective and Objective Quality Assessment of Audio-Visual Signals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tip.2020.2988148
- The paper
- Min, X., Zhai, G., Zhou, J., Farias, M. C. Q., & Bovik, A. C. (2020). Study of Subjective and Objective Quality Assessment of Audio-Visual Signals. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing. https://doi.org/10.1109/tip.2020.2988148
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.