Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
loading
Papers Papers/2022 Papers Papers/2022

Research.Publish.Connect.

Paper

Authors: Olga Cherepkova ; Seyed Ali Amirshahi and Marius Pedersen

Affiliation: Norwegian University of Science and Industry, Norway

Keyword(s): 3AFC, Three-Alternative Forced-Choice, Slider, Contrast, Preferences, Response Format.

Abstract: When it comes to collecting subjective data in the field of image quality assessment, different approaches have been proposed. Most datasets in the field ask observers to evaluate the quality of different test and reference images. However, a number of datasets ask observers to make changes to one or more properties of the image to enhance the image to its best possible quality. Among the methods used in the second approach is the Three-Alternative Forced Choice (3AFC) and the slider-based methods. In this paper, we study and compare the two mentioned methods in the case of collecting contrast preferences for natural images. Fifteen observers participated in two experiments under controlled settings, incorporating 499 unique and 100 repeated images. The reliability of the answers and the differences between the two methods were analyzed. The results revealed a general lack of correlation in contrast preferences between the two methods. The slider-based method generally yielded lower values in contrast preferences compared to 3AFC experiment. In the case of repeated images, the slider-based method showed greater consistency in subjective scores given by each observer. These results suggest that neither method can serve as a direct substitute for the other, as they exhibited low correlation and statistically significant differences in results. The slider-based experiment offered the advantage of significantly shorter completion times, contributing to higher observer satisfaction. In contrast, the 3AFC task provided a more robust interface for collecting preferences. By comparing the results obtained by the two methods, this study provides information on their respective strengths, limitations, and suitability for use in similar preference acquisition tasks. (More)

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Sign In Guest: Register as new SciTePress user now for free.

Sign In SciTePress user: please login.

PDF ImageMy Papers

You are not signed in, therefore limits apply to your IP address 70.40.220.129

In the current month:
Recent papers: 100 available of 100 total
2+ years older papers: 200 available of 200 total

Paper citation in several formats:
Cherepkova, O.; Amirshahi, S. and Pedersen, M. (2024). A Comparative Analysis of the Three-Alternative Forced Choice Method and the Slider-Based Method in Subjective Experiments: A Case Study on Contrast Preference Task. In Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications - Volume 3: VISAPP; ISBN 978-989-758-679-8; ISSN 2184-4321, SciTePress, pages 425-435. DOI: 10.5220/0012360500003660

@conference{visapp24,
author={Olga Cherepkova. and Seyed Ali Amirshahi. and Marius Pedersen.},
title={A Comparative Analysis of the Three-Alternative Forced Choice Method and the Slider-Based Method in Subjective Experiments: A Case Study on Contrast Preference Task},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications - Volume 3: VISAPP},
year={2024},
pages={425-435},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0012360500003660},
isbn={978-989-758-679-8},
issn={2184-4321},
}

TY - CONF

JO - Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications - Volume 3: VISAPP
TI - A Comparative Analysis of the Three-Alternative Forced Choice Method and the Slider-Based Method in Subjective Experiments: A Case Study on Contrast Preference Task
SN - 978-989-758-679-8
IS - 2184-4321
AU - Cherepkova, O.
AU - Amirshahi, S.
AU - Pedersen, M.
PY - 2024
SP - 425
EP - 435
DO - 10.5220/0012360500003660
PB - SciTePress