AES E-Library

N. Zacharov, C. Volk, and T. Stegenborg-Andersen, "Comparison of Hedonic and Quality Rating Scales for Perceptual Evaluation of High- and Intermediate Quality Stimuli," Paper 9879, (2017 October.). doi: N. Zacharov, C. Volk, and T. Stegenborg-Andersen, "Comparison of Hedonic and Quality Rating Scales for Perceptual Evaluation of High- and Intermediate Quality Stimuli," Paper 9879, (2017 October.). doi:
Abstract: In this study four rating scales for perceptual evaluation of Preference were compared: 9-point hedonic, Continuous Quality Scale (CQS) (e.g., used in ITU-R BS.1534-3 [1], “MUSHRA”), Labelled Hedonic Scale (LHS) [2], and a modified version of the LHS. The CQS was tested in three configurations to study the role and impact of the reference and anchor stimuli, namely: A full MUSHRA test with anchors and references, a test without references, and a test with neither references nor anchors. The six test configurations were tested with two groups of AAC codec qualities: High and Intermediate quality ranges. Results showed that the largest difference in scale usage were caused by having a declared reference, but also that the scale range usage is not strongly related to stimuli discrimination power.

@article{zacharov2017comparison,
author={zacharov, nick and volk, christer and stegenborg-andersen, tore},
journal={journal of the audio engineering society},
title={comparison of hedonic and quality rating scales for perceptual evaluation of high- and intermediate quality stimuli},
year={2017},
volume={},
number={},
pages={},
doi={},
month={october},} @article{zacharov2017comparison,
author={zacharov, nick and volk, christer and stegenborg-andersen, tore},
journal={journal of the audio engineering society},
title={comparison of hedonic and quality rating scales for perceptual evaluation of high- and intermediate quality stimuli},
year={2017},
volume={},
number={},
pages={},
doi={},
month={october},
abstract={in this study four rating scales for perceptual evaluation of preference were compared: 9-point hedonic, continuous quality scale (cqs) (e.g., used in itu-r bs.1534-3 [1], “mushra”), labelled hedonic scale (lhs) [2], and a modified version of the lhs. the cqs was tested in three configurations to study the role and impact of the reference and anchor stimuli, namely: a full mushra test with anchors and references, a test without references, and a test with neither references nor anchors. the six test configurations were tested with two groups of aac codec qualities: high and intermediate quality ranges. results showed that the largest difference in scale usage were caused by having a declared reference, but also that the scale range usage is not strongly related to stimuli discrimination power.},}

TY - paper
TI - Comparison of Hedonic and Quality Rating Scales for Perceptual Evaluation of High- and Intermediate Quality Stimuli
SP - EP -
AU - Zacharov, Nick
AU - Volk, Christer
AU - Stegenborg-Andersen, Tore
PY - 2017
JO - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society
IS -
VO -
VL -
Y1 - October 2017 TY - paper
TI - Comparison of Hedonic and Quality Rating Scales for Perceptual Evaluation of High- and Intermediate Quality Stimuli
SP - EP -
AU - Zacharov, Nick
AU - Volk, Christer
AU - Stegenborg-Andersen, Tore
PY - 2017
JO - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society
IS -
VO -
VL -
Y1 - October 2017
AB - In this study four rating scales for perceptual evaluation of Preference were compared: 9-point hedonic, Continuous Quality Scale (CQS) (e.g., used in ITU-R BS.1534-3 [1], “MUSHRA”), Labelled Hedonic Scale (LHS) [2], and a modified version of the LHS. The CQS was tested in three configurations to study the role and impact of the reference and anchor stimuli, namely: A full MUSHRA test with anchors and references, a test without references, and a test with neither references nor anchors. The six test configurations were tested with two groups of AAC codec qualities: High and Intermediate quality ranges. Results showed that the largest difference in scale usage were caused by having a declared reference, but also that the scale range usage is not strongly related to stimuli discrimination power.