Perceptual Quality Assessment of Compressed Vibrotactile Signals Through Comparative Judgment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we present a comprehensive scheme for the quality assessment of compressed vibrotactile signals with human assessors. Inspired by the multiple stimulus test with hidden reference and anchors (MUSHRA) from the audio domain, we designed a method in which each compressed signal is compared to its original signal and rated on a numerical scale. For each signal tested, the hidden reference and two anchor signals are used to validate the results and provide assessor screening criteria. Differing from previous approaches, our method is hierarchically structured and strictly timed in a sequential manner to avoid experimental confounds and provide precise psychophysical assessments. We validated our method in an experiment with 20 human participants in which we compared two state-of-the-art lossy codecs. The results show that, with our approach, the performance of different codecs can be compared effectively. Furthermore, the method also provides a measure of subjective quality at different data compression rates. The proposed procedure can be easily adapted to evaluate other vibrotactile codecs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it