Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Miriam Kurz

dblp:270/2597 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Immersive interaction · 77% Usability and user experience research · 23%
Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper
Audio and music processing · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Audio and music processing
audio quality assessment
0.612022
Comparing Direct and Indirect Methods of Audio Quality Evaluation in Virtual Reality Scenes of Varying Complexity · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2022
Immersive interaction
virtual reality interaction
0.612022
Comparing Direct and Indirect Methods of Audio Quality Evaluation in Virtual Reality Scenes of Varying Complexity · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2022

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

rank-order elimination · 1.1pairwise comparison · 1.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Comparing Direct and Indirect Methods of Audio Quality Evaluation in Virtual Reality Scenes of Varying Complexity
abstract
Many quality evaluation methods are used to assess uni-modal audio or video content without considering perceptual, cognitive, and interactive aspects present in virtual reality (VR) settings. Consequently, little is known regarding the repercussions of the employed evaluation method, content, and subject behavior on the quality ratings in VR. This mixed between- and within-subjects study uses four subjective audio quality evaluation methods (viz. multiple-stimulus with and without reference for direct scaling, and rank-order elimination and pairwise comparison for indirect scaling) to investigate the contributing factors present in multi-modal 6-DoF VR on quality ratings of real-time audio rendering. For each between-subjects employed method, two sets of conditions in five VR scenes were evaluated within-subjects. The conditions targeted relevant attributes for binaural audio reproduction using scenes with various amounts of user interactivity. Our results show all referenceless methods produce similar results using both condition sets. However, rank-order elimination proved to be the fastest method, required the least amount of repetitive motion, and yielded the highest discrimination between spatial conditions. Scene complexity was found to be a main effect within results, with behavioral and task load index results implying more complex scenes and interactive aspects of 6-DoF VR can impede quality judgments.
Thomas Robotham, Olli Rummukainen, Miriam Kurz, Marie Eckert, Emanuël A. P. Habets
IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph.3