annotate docs/WAC2016/WAC2016.tex @ 328:132418abdc27 WAC2016

Major update to Introduction, commenting out parts to get layout
author Nicholas Jillings <nicholas.jillings@eecs.qmul.ac.uk>
date Wed, 14 Oct 2015 16:02:45 +0100
parents 47405e6682d8
children 5f27d3eb93fe 3a43f9e4cecf
rev   line source
b@308 1 \documentclass{sig-alternate}
b@318 2 \usepackage{hyperref} % make links (like references, links to Sections, ...) clickable
b@318 3 \usepackage{enumitem} % tighten itemize etc by appending '[noitemsep,nolistsep]'
d@321 4 \usepackage{cleveref}
b@308 5
b@308 6 \begin{document}
b@308 7
b@308 8 % Copyright
b@308 9 \setcopyright{waclicense}
b@308 10
b@308 11
b@308 12 %% DOI
b@308 13 %\doi{10.475/123_4}
b@308 14 %
b@308 15 %% ISBN
b@308 16 %\isbn{123-4567-24-567/08/06}
b@308 17 %
b@308 18 %%Conference
b@308 19 %\conferenceinfo{PLDI '13}{June 16--19, 2013, Seattle, WA, USA}
b@308 20 %
b@308 21 %\acmPrice{\$15.00}
b@308 22
b@308 23 %
b@308 24 % --- Author Metadata here ---
b@308 25 \conferenceinfo{Web Audio Conference WAC-2016,}{April 4--6, 2016, Atlanta, USA}
b@308 26 \CopyrightYear{2016} % Allows default copyright year (20XX) to be over-ridden - IF NEED BE.
b@308 27 %\crdata{0-12345-67-8/90/01} % Allows default copyright data (0-89791-88-6/97/05) to be over-ridden - IF NEED BE.
b@308 28 % --- End of Author Metadata ---
b@308 29
b@320 30 \title{Web Audio Evaluation Tool: A framework for subjective assessment of audio}
b@308 31 %\subtitle{[Extended Abstract]
b@308 32 %\titlenote{A full version of this paper is available as
b@308 33 %\textit{Author's Guide to Preparing ACM SIG Proceedings Using
b@308 34 %\LaTeX$2_\epsilon$\ and BibTeX} at
b@308 35 %\texttt{www.acm.org/eaddress.htm}}}
b@308 36 %
b@308 37 % You need the command \numberofauthors to handle the 'placement
b@308 38 % and alignment' of the authors beneath the title.
b@308 39 %
b@308 40 % For aesthetic reasons, we recommend 'three authors at a time'
b@308 41 % i.e. three 'name/affiliation blocks' be placed beneath the title.
b@308 42 %
b@308 43 % NOTE: You are NOT restricted in how many 'rows' of
b@308 44 % "name/affiliations" may appear. We just ask that you restrict
b@308 45 % the number of 'columns' to three.
b@308 46 %
b@308 47 % Because of the available 'opening page real-estate'
b@308 48 % we ask you to refrain from putting more than six authors
b@308 49 % (two rows with three columns) beneath the article title.
b@308 50 % More than six makes the first-page appear very cluttered indeed.
b@308 51 %
b@308 52 % Use the \alignauthor commands to handle the names
b@308 53 % and affiliations for an 'aesthetic maximum' of six authors.
b@308 54 % Add names, affiliations, addresses for
b@308 55 % the seventh etc. author(s) as the argument for the
b@308 56 % \additionalauthors command.
b@308 57 % These 'additional authors' will be output/set for you
b@308 58 % without further effort on your part as the last section in
b@308 59 % the body of your article BEFORE References or any Appendices.
b@308 60
b@316 61 % FIVE authors instead of four, to leave space between first two authors.
d@310 62 \numberofauthors{5} % in this sample file, there are a *total*
b@308 63 % of EIGHT authors. SIX appear on the 'first-page' (for formatting
b@308 64 % reasons) and the remaining two appear in the \additionalauthors section.
b@308 65 %
b@308 66 \author{
b@308 67 % You can go ahead and credit any number of authors here,
b@308 68 % e.g. one 'row of three' or two rows (consisting of one row of three
b@308 69 % and a second row of one, two or three).
b@308 70 %
b@308 71 % The command \alignauthor (no curly braces needed) should
b@308 72 % precede each author name, affiliation/snail-mail address and
b@308 73 % e-mail address. Additionally, tag each line of
b@308 74 % affiliation/address with \affaddr, and tag the
b@308 75 % e-mail address with \email.
b@308 76 %
b@308 77 % 1st. author
b@308 78 \alignauthor Nicholas Jillings\\
b@308 79 \email{n.g.r.jillings@se14.qmul.ac.uk}
b@316 80 % dummy author for nicer spacing
b@316 81 \alignauthor
b@308 82 % 2nd. author
b@308 83 \alignauthor Brecht De Man\\
b@308 84 \email{b.deman@qmul.ac.uk}
b@308 85 \and % use '\and' if you need 'another row' of author names
b@308 86 % 3rd. author
b@308 87 \alignauthor David Moffat\\
b@308 88 \email{d.j.moffat@qmul.ac.uk}
b@308 89 % 4th. author
b@308 90 \alignauthor Joshua D. Reiss\\
b@308 91 \email{joshua.reiss@qmul.ac.uk}
b@316 92 \and % new line for address
b@308 93 \affaddr{Centre for Digital Music}\\
b@308 94 \affaddr{School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science}\\
b@308 95 \affaddr{Queen Mary University of London}\\
b@308 96 \affaddr{Mile End Road,}
b@308 97 \affaddr{London E1 4NS}\\
b@308 98 \affaddr{United Kingdom}\\
b@308 99 }
b@308 100 %Centre for Digital Music, School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London
b@308 101 %% 5th. author
b@308 102 %\alignauthor Sean Fogarty\\
b@308 103 % \affaddr{NASA Ames Research Center}\\
b@308 104 % \affaddr{Moffett Field}\\
b@308 105 % \email{fogartys@amesres.org}
b@308 106 %% 6th. author
b@308 107 %\alignauthor Charles Palmer\\
b@308 108 % \affaddr{Palmer Research Laboratories}\\
b@308 109 % \affaddr{8600 Datapoint Drive}\\
b@308 110 % \email{cpalmer@prl.com}
b@308 111 %}
b@308 112 % There's nothing stopping you putting the seventh, eighth, etc.
b@308 113 % author on the opening page (as the 'third row') but we ask,
b@308 114 % for aesthetic reasons that you place these 'additional authors'
b@308 115 % in the \additional authors block, viz.
b@308 116 %\additionalauthors{Additional authors: John Smith (The Th{\o}rv{\"a}ld Group,
b@308 117 %email: {\texttt{jsmith@affiliation.org}}) and Julius P.~Kumquat
b@308 118 %(The Kumquat Consortium, email: {\texttt{jpkumquat@consortium.net}}).}
b@308 119 \date{1 October 2015}
b@308 120 % Just remember to make sure that the TOTAL number of authors
b@308 121 % is the number that will appear on the first page PLUS the
b@308 122 % number that will appear in the \additionalauthors section.
b@308 123
b@308 124 \maketitle
b@308 125 \begin{abstract}
b@308 126 Here comes the abstract.
b@308 127 \end{abstract}
b@308 128
b@308 129
b@308 130 \section{Introduction}
b@317 131
b@317 132 % Listening tests/perceptual audio evaluation: what are they, why are they important
b@317 133 % As opposed to limited scope of WAC15 paper: also musical features, realism of sound effects / sound synthesis, performance of source separation and other algorithms...
nicholas@328 134 Perceptual evaluation of audio, in the form of listening tests, is a powerful way to assess anything from audio codec quality over realism of sound synthesis to the performance of source separation, automated music production and other auditory evaluations.
b@317 135 In less technical areas, the framework of a listening test can be used to measure emotional response to music or test cognitive abilities. % maybe some references? If there's space.
b@317 136
b@318 137 % check out http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10055-015-0270-8 - only paper that cited WAC15 paper
b@318 138
nicholas@328 139 % Why difficult? Challenges? What constitutes a good interface?
nicholas@328 140 % Technical, interfaces, user friendliness, reliability
nicholas@328 141 There are multiple programs for performing perceptual listening tests, as can be seen in Table \ref{tab:toolboxes}. Some are designed to have only one interface type or only work using proprietary software. The Web Audio Evaluation Toolbox is different as it does not require proprietary software and provides many interface and test types in one, common environment. Note that the design of an effective listening test further poses many challenges unrelated to interface design, which are beyond the scope of this paper \cite{bech}.
b@317 142
b@317 143 % Why in the browser?
nicholas@328 144 Web Audio API has important features for performing perceptual tests including sample level manipulation of audio streams \cite{schoeffler2015mushra}, synchronous playback and flexible playback. Being in the browser also allows leveraging the flexible object oriented JavaScript format and native support for web documents, such as the extensible markup language (XML) which is used for configuration and test results. Using the web also simplifies test deployment to requiring a basic web server with advanced functionality such as test collection and automatic processing using PHP. As recruiting participants can be very time-consuming, and as for some tests a large number of participants is needed, browser-based tests \cite{schoeffler2015mushra}. However, to our knowledge, no tool currently exists that allows the creation of a remotely accessible listening test. BeaqleJS \cite{beaqlejs} also operates in the browser, however BeaqleJS does not make use of the Web Audio API.%requires programming knowledge?...
b@316 145
b@316 146 % only browser-based?
d@321 147 \begin{table*}[ht]
b@323 148 \caption{Table with existing listening test platforms and their features}
b@323 149 \begin{center}
b@323 150 \begin{tabular}{|*{6}{l|}}
b@323 151 \hline
b@323 152 \textbf{Name} & \textbf{Ref.} & \textbf{Language} & \textbf{Interfaces} & \textbf{Remote} & \textbf{All UI} \\
b@323 153 \hline
b@323 154 APE & \cite{ape} & MATLAB & multi-stimulus, 1 axis per attribute & & \\
b@323 155 BeaqleJS & \cite{beaqlejs} & JavaScript & ABX, MUSHRA & (not natively supported) & \\
b@323 156 HULTI-GEN & \cite{hultigen} & MAX & & & \checkmark \\
b@323 157 mushraJS & \footnote{https://github.com/akaroice/mushraJS} & JavaScript & MUSHRA & \checkmark & \\
b@323 158 MUSHRAM & \cite{mushram} & MATLAB & MUSHRA & & \\
b@323 159 Scale & \cite{scale} & MATLAB & & & \\
b@323 160 WhisPER & \cite{whisper} & MATLAB & & & \checkmark \\
b@323 161 \textbf{WAET} & \cite{waet} & JavaScript & \textbf{all of the above} & \checkmark & \checkmark \\
b@323 162 \hline
b@323 163 \end{tabular}
b@323 164 \end{center}
b@323 165 \label{tab:toolboxes}
b@323 166 \end{table*}%
b@323 167
b@323 168 \begin{table*}[ht]
b@323 169 \caption{Table with interfaces and which toolboxes support them}
b@323 170 \begin{center}
b@323 171 \begin{tabular}{|*{5}{l|}}
b@323 172 \hline
b@323 173 \textbf{Interface} & \textbf{HULTI-GEN} & \textbf{Scale} & \textbf{WhisPER} & \textbf{WAET} \\
b@323 174 \hline
b@323 175 MUSHRA (ITU-R BS. 1534) & \checkmark & & & \checkmark \\
b@323 176 Rank scale & \checkmark & & & \checkmark \\
b@323 177 Likert scale & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark \\
b@323 178 ABC/HR (ITU-R BS. 1116) & \checkmark & & & \checkmark \\
b@323 179 -50 to 50 Bipolar with Ref & \checkmark & & & \checkmark \\
b@323 180 Absolute Category Rating (ACR) Scale & \checkmark & & & \checkmark \\
b@323 181 Degredation Category Rating (DCR) Scale & \checkmark & & & \checkmark \\
b@323 182 Comparison Category Rating (CCR) Scale & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark \\
b@323 183 9 Point Hedonic Category Rating Scale & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark \\
b@323 184 ITU-R 5 Point Continuous Impairment Scale & \checkmark & & & \checkmark \\
b@323 185 Pairwise Comparison (Better/Worse) & \checkmark & & & \checkmark \\
b@323 186 APE style & & & & \checkmark \\
b@323 187 Multi attribute ratings & \checkmark & & & \checkmark \\
b@323 188 AB Test & \checkmark & & & \checkmark \\
b@323 189 ABX Test & \checkmark & & & \checkmark \\
b@323 190 ``Adaptive psychophysical methods'' & & & \checkmark & \\
b@323 191 Repertory Grid Technique (RGT) & & & \checkmark & \\
b@323 192 (Semantic differential) & & & (\checkmark) & \\ % same as a few of the above
b@323 193 \hline
b@323 194 \end{tabular}
b@323 195 \end{center}
nicholas@328 196 \label{tab:toolbox_interfaces}
b@323 197 \end{table*}%
b@316 198
b@316 199 %
nicholas@328 200 %Selling points: remote tests, visualisaton, create your own test in the browser, many interfaces, few/no dependencies, flexibility
b@317 201
b@317 202 [Talking about what we do in the various sections of this paper. Referring to \cite{waet}. ]
nicholas@328 203 \begin{comment}
b@320 204 % MEETING 8 OCTOBER
b@320 205 \subsection{Meeting 8 October}
b@320 206 \begin{itemize}
b@320 207 \item Do we manipulate audio?\\
b@320 208 \begin{itemize}
b@320 209 \item Add loudness equalisation? (test\_create.html) Tag with gains.
b@320 210 \item Add volume slider?
b@320 211 \item Cross-fade (in interface node): default 0, number of seconds
b@320 212 \item Also: we use the playback buffer to present metrics of which portion is listened to
b@320 213 \end{itemize}
b@320 214 \item Logging system information: whichever are possible (justify others)
b@320 215 \item Input streams as audioelements
b@320 216 \item Capture microphone to estimate loudness (especially Macbook)
b@320 217 \item Test page (in-built oscillators): left-right calibration, ramp up test tone until you hear it; optional compensating EQ (future work implementing own filters) --> Highlight issues!
b@320 218 \item Record IP address (PHP function, grab and append to XML file)
b@320 219 \item Expand anchor/reference options
b@320 220 \item AB / ABX
b@320 221 \end{itemize}
b@320 222
b@320 223 \subsubsection{Issues}
b@320 224 \begin{itemize}
b@320 225 \item Filters not consistent (Nick to test across browsers)
b@320 226 \item Playback audiobuffers need to be destroyed and rebuilt each time
b@320 227 \item Can't get channel data, hardware input/output...
b@320 228 \end{itemize}
nicholas@328 229 \end{comment}
b@316 230
b@317 231 \section{Architecture} % title? 'back end'? % NICK
nicholas@322 232 WAET utilises the Web Audio API for audio playback and uses a sparse subset of the Web Audio API functionality, however the performance of WAET comes directly from the Web Audio API. Listening tests can convey large amounts of information other than obtaining the perceptual relationship between the audio fragments. WAET specifically can obtain which parts of the audio fragments were listened to and when, at what point in the audio stream did the participant switch to a different fragment and what new rating did they give a fragment. Therefore it is possible to not only evaluate the perceptual research question but also evaluate if the participant performed the test well and therefore if their results are representative or should be discarded as an outlier.
nicholas@322 233
nicholas@322 234 One of the key initial design parameters for WAET is to make the tool as open as possible to non-programmers and to this end the tool has been designed in such a way that all of the user modifiable options are included in a single XML document. This document is loaded up automatically by the web page and the JavaScript code parses and loads any extra resources required to create the test.
nicholas@322 235
nicholas@322 236 The specification document also contains the URL of the audio fragments for each test page. These fragments are downloaded asynchronously and decoded offline by the Web Audio offline decoder. The resulting buffers are assigned to a custom Audio Objects node which tracks the fragment buffer, the playback bufferSourceNode, the XML information including its unique test ID, the interface object(s) associated with the fragment and any metric or data collection objects. The Audio Object is controlled by an over-arching custom Audio Context node (not to be confused with the Web Audio Context), this parent JS Node allows for session wide control of the Audio Objects including starting and stopping playback of specific nodes.
nicholas@322 237
nicholas@322 238 The only issue with this model is the bufferNode in the Web Audio API, which is implemented as a 'use once' object which, once the buffer has been played, the buffer must be discarded as it cannot be instructed to play the buffer again. Therefore on each start request the buffer object must be created and then linked with the stored bufferSourceNode. This is an odd behaviour for such a simple object which has no alternative except to use the HTML5 audio element, however they do not have the ability to synchronously start on a given time and therefore not suited.
nicholas@322 239
nicholas@322 240 The media files supported depend on the browser level support for the initial decoding of information and is the same as the browser support for the HTML5 audio element. Therefore the most widely supported media file is the wave (.WAV) format which can be accpeted by every browser supporting the Web Audio API. The next best supported audio only formats are MP3 and AAC (in MP4) which are supported by all major browsers, Firefox relies on OS decoders and therefore its support is predicated by the OS support.
nicholas@322 241
nicholas@322 242 All the collected session data is returned in an XML document structured similarly to the configuration document, where test pages contain the audio elements with their trace collection, results, comments and any other interface-specific data points.
nicholas@322 243
b@308 244 A slightly technical overview of the system. Talk about XML, JavaScript, Web Audio API, HTML5.
b@316 245 Describe and/or visualise audioholder-audioelement-... structure.
b@316 246
b@317 247 % see also SMC12 - less detail here
b@317 248
b@317 249 Which type of files? % WAV, anything else? Perhaps not exhaustive list, but say something along the lines of 'whatever browser supports'
b@315 250
b@316 251 Streaming audio? % probably not, unless it's easy
b@316 252
b@317 253 Compatibility? % not IE, everything else fine?
b@317 254
b@317 255
b@315 256
b@315 257
b@316 258 \section{Remote tests} % with previous?
b@317 259
b@317 260 If the experimenter is willing to trade some degree of control for a higher number of participants, the test can be hosted on a web server so that subjects can take part remotely. This way, a link can be shared widely in the hope of attracting a large amount of subjects, while listening conditions and subject reliability may be less ideal. However, a sound system calibration page and a wide range of metrics logged during the test mitigate these problems. Note also that in some experiments, it may be preferred that the subject has a `real life', familiar listening set-up, for instance when perceived quality differences on everyday sound systems are investigated.
b@317 261 Furthermore, a fully browser-based test, where the collection of the results is automatic, is more efficient and technically reliable even when the test still takes place under lab conditions.
b@317 262
b@315 263 The following features allow easy and effective remote testing:
b@318 264 \begin{itemize}[noitemsep,nolistsep]
b@315 265 \item PHP script to collect result XML files
b@315 266 \item Randomly pick specified number of audioholders
b@317 267 \item Calibration
nicholas@322 268 % In theory calibration could be applied anywhere??
b@315 269 \item Functionality to participate multiple times
b@318 270 \begin{itemize}[noitemsep,nolistsep]
b@315 271 \item Possible to log in with unique ID (no password)
n@327 272 \item Pick `new user' (generates new, unique ID) or `already participated' (need already available ID)
b@315 273 \item Store XML on server with IDs plus which audioholders have already been listened to
b@315 274 \item Don't show `post-test' survey after first time
b@315 275 \item Pick `new' audioholders if available
b@315 276 \item Copy survey information first time to new XMLs
b@315 277 \end{itemize}
b@315 278 \item Intermediate saves
n@327 279 \item Collect Public IP address information for geographic location (by country).
nicholas@322 280 \item Collect Browser and Display information
b@315 281 \end{itemize}
b@315 282
b@308 283
b@316 284 \section{Interfaces} % title? 'Front end'? % Dave
d@321 285
d@321 286 The purpose of this listening test framework is to allow any user the maximum flexibility to design a listening test for their exact application with minimum effort. To this end, a large range of standard listening test interfaces have been implemented. A review of existing listening test frameworks was undertaken and presented in~\Cref{tab:toolboxes}. HULTI-GEN~\cite{hultigen} is a single toolbox that presents the user with a large number of different test interfaces and allows for customisation of each test interface.
d@321 287
b@323 288 To provide users with a flexible system, a large range of `standard' listening test interfaces have been implemented, including: % pretty much the same wording as two sentences earlier
d@321 289 \begin{itemize}[noitemsep,nolistsep]
d@321 290 \item MUSHRA (ITU-R BS. 1534)~\cite{recommendation20031534}
d@321 291 \begin{itemize}
d@321 292 \item Multiple stimuli are presented and rated on a continuous scale, which includes a reference, hidden reference and hidden anchors.
d@321 293 \end{itemize}
d@321 294 \item Rank Scale~\cite{pascoe1983evaluation}
d@321 295 \begin{itemize}
d@321 296 \item Stimuli ranked on single horizontal scale, where they are ordered in preference order.
d@321 297 \end{itemize}
d@321 298 \item Likert scale~\cite{likert1932technique}
d@321 299 \begin{itemize}
d@321 300 \item Each stimuli has a five point scale with values: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree and Strongly Disagree.
d@321 301 \end{itemize}
d@321 302 \item ABC/HR (ITU-R BS. 1116)~\cite{recommendation19971116} (Mean Opinion Score: MOS)
d@321 303 \begin{itemize}
d@321 304 \item Each stimulus has a continuous scale (5-1), labeled as Imperceptible, Perceptible but not annoying, slightly annoying, annoying, very annoying.
d@321 305 \end{itemize}
d@321 306 \item -50 to 50 Bipolar with Ref
d@321 307 \begin{itemize}
d@321 308 \item Each stimulus has a continuous scale -50 to 50 with default values as 0 in middle and a comparison. There is also a provided reference \end{itemize}
d@321 309 \item Absolute Category Rating (ACR) Scale~\cite{rec1996p}
d@321 310 \begin{itemize}
d@321 311 \item Each stimuli has a five point scale with values: Bad, Poor, Fair, Good, Excellent
d@321 312 \end{itemize}
d@321 313 \item Degredation Category Rating (DCR) Scale~\cite{rec1996p}
d@321 314 \begin{itemize}
d@321 315 \item Each stimuli has a five point scale with values: (5) Inaudible, (4) Audible but not annoying, (3) slightly annoying, (2) annoying, (1) very annoying.
d@321 316 \end{itemize}
d@321 317 \item Comparison Category Rating (CCR) Scale~\cite{rec1996p}
d@321 318 \begin{itemize}
d@321 319 \item Each stimuli has a seven point scale with values: Much Better, Better, Slightly Better, About the same, slightly worse, worse, much worse. There is also a provided reference.
d@321 320 \end{itemize}
d@321 321 \item 9 Point Hedonic Category Rating Scale~\cite{peryam1952advanced}
d@321 322 \begin{itemize}
d@321 323 \item Each stimuli has a seven point scale with values: Like Extremely, Like Very Much, Like Moderate, Like Slightly, Neither Like nor Dislike, dislike Extremely, dislike Very Much, dislike Moderate, dislike Slightly. There is also a provided reference.
d@321 324 \end{itemize}
d@321 325 \item ITU-R 5 Point Continuous Impairment Scale~\cite{rec1997bs}
d@321 326 \begin{itemize}
d@321 327 \item Each stimuli has a five point scale with values: (5) Imperceptible, (4) Perceptible but not annoying, (3) slightly annoying, (2) annoying, (1) very annoying. There is also a provided reference.
d@321 328 \end{itemize}
d@321 329 \item Pairwise Comparison (Better/Worse)~\cite{david1963method}
d@321 330 \begin{itemize}
d@321 331 \item A reference is provided and ever stimulus is rated as being either better or worse than the reference.
d@321 332 \end{itemize}
d@321 333 \item APE style \cite{ape}
d@321 334 \begin{itemize}
d@321 335 \item Multiple stimuli on a single horizontal slider for inter-sample rating.
d@321 336 \end{itemize}
d@321 337 \item Multi attribute ratings
d@321 338 \begin{itemize}
d@321 339 \item Multiple stimuli as points on a 2D plane for inter-sample rating (eg. Valence Arousal)
d@321 340 \end{itemize}
d@321 341 \item AB Test~\cite{lipshitz1981great}
d@321 342 \begin{itemize}
d@321 343 \item Two stimuli are presented at a time and the participant has to select a preferred stimulus.
d@321 344 \end{itemize}
d@321 345 \item ABX Test~\cite{clark1982high}
d@321 346 \begin{itemize}
d@321 347 \item Two stimuli are presented along with a reference and the participant has to select a preferred stimulus, often the closest to the reference.
d@321 348 \end{itemize}
d@321 349 \end{itemize}
d@321 350
d@321 351 While implementing all of these interfaces, it is possible to include any number of references, anchors, hidden references and hidden anchors into all of these listening test formats.
d@321 352
n@326 353 Because of the design choice to separate the core code and interface modules, it is possible for a 3rd party interface to be built with minimal effort. The repository includes documentation on which functions must be called and the specific functions they expect your interface to perform. To this end, there is an 'Interface' object which includes functions for creating the on-page comment boxes (including those with radio or checkbox responses), start and stop buttons with function handles pre-attached and the playhead / transport bars.
n@326 354
d@321 355 %%%% \begin{itemize}[noitemsep,nolistsep]
d@321 356 %%%% \item (APE style) \cite{ape}
d@321 357 %%%% \item Multi attribute ratings
d@321 358 %%%% \item MUSHRA (ITU-R BS. 1534)~\cite{recommendation20031534}
d@321 359 %%%% \item Interval Scale~\cite{zacharov1999round}
d@321 360 %%%% \item Rank Scale~\cite{pascoe1983evaluation}
d@321 361 %%%%
d@321 362 %%%% \item 2D Plane rating - e.g. Valence vs. Arousal~\cite{carroll1969individual}
d@321 363 %%%% \item Likert scale~\cite{likert1932technique}
d@321 364 %%%%
d@321 365 %%%% \item {\bf All the following are the interfaces available in HULTI-GEN~\cite{hultigen} }
d@321 366 %%%% \item ABC/HR (ITU-R BS. 1116)~\cite{recommendation19971116}
d@321 367 %%%% \begin{itemize}
d@321 368 %%%% \item Continuous Scale (5-1) Imperceptible, Perceptible but not annoying, slightly annoying, annoying, very annoying. (default Inaudible?)
d@321 369 %%%% \end{itemize}
d@321 370 %%%% \item -50 to 50 Bipolar with Ref
d@321 371 %%%% \begin{itemize}
d@321 372 %%%% \item Scale -50 to 50 on Mushra with default values as 0 in middle and a comparison ``Reference'' to compare to 0 value
d@321 373 %%%% \end{itemize}
d@321 374 %%%% \item Absolute Category Rating (ACR) Scale~\cite{rec1996p}
d@321 375 %%%% \begin{itemize}
d@321 376 %%%% \item 5 point Scale - Bad, Poor, Fair, Good, Excellent (Default fair?)
d@321 377 %%%% \end{itemize}
d@321 378 %%%% \item Degredation Category Rating (DCR) Scale~\cite{rec1996p}
d@321 379 %%%% \begin{itemize}
d@321 380 %%%% \item 5 point Scale - Inaudible, Audible but not annoying, slightly annoying, annoying, very annoying. (default Inaudible?) - {\it Basically just quantised ABC/HR?}
d@321 381 %%%% \end{itemize}
d@321 382 %%%% \item Comparison Category Rating (CCR) Scale~\cite{rec1996p}
d@321 383 %%%% \begin{itemize}
d@321 384 %%%% \item 7 point scale: Much Better, Better, Slightly Better, About the same, slightly worse, worse, much worse - Default about the same with reference to compare to
d@321 385 %%%% \end{itemize}
d@321 386 %%%% \item 9 Point Hedonic Category Rating Scale~\cite{peryam1952advanced}
d@321 387 %%%% \begin{itemize}
d@321 388 %%%% \item 9 point scale: Like Extremely, Like Very Much, Like Moderate, Like Slightly, Neither Like nor Dislike, dislike Extremely, dislike Very Much, dislike Moderate, dislike Slightly - Default Neither Like nor Dislike with reference to compare to
d@321 389 %%%% \end{itemize}
d@321 390 %%%% \item ITU-R 5 Point Continuous Impairment Scale~\cite{rec1997bs}
d@321 391 %%%% \begin{itemize}
d@321 392 %%%% \item 5 point Scale (5-1) Imperceptible, Perceptible but not annoying, slightly annoying, annoying, very annoying. (default Inaudible?)- {\it Basically just quantised ABC/HR, or Different named DCR}
d@321 393 %%%% \end{itemize}
d@321 394 %%%% \item Pairwise Comparison (Better/Worse)~\cite{david1963method}
d@321 395 %%%% \begin{itemize}
d@321 396 %%%% \item 2 point Scale - Better or Worse - (not sure how to default this - they default everything to better, which is an interesting choice)
d@321 397 %%%% \end{itemize}
d@321 398 %%%% \end{itemize}
d@321 399
n@326 400 % Build your own test
nicholas@328 401 \begin{comment}
d@321 402 { \bf A screenshot would be nice.
d@321 403
d@321 404 Established tests (see below) included as `presets' in the build-your-own-test page. }
nicholas@328 405 \end{comment}
b@308 406
b@308 407 \section{Analysis and diagnostics}
b@317 408 % don't mention Python scripts
b@308 409 It would be great to have easy-to-use analysis tools to visualise the collected data and even do science with it. Even better would be to have all this in the browser. Complete perfection would be achieved if and when only limited setup, installation time, and expertise are required for the average non-CS researcher to use this.
b@308 410
b@312 411 The following could be nice:
b@312 412
b@318 413 \begin{itemize}[noitemsep,nolistsep]
b@312 414 \item Web page showing all audioholder IDs, file names, subject IDs, audio element IDs, ... in the collected XMLs so far (\texttt{saves/*.xml})
b@312 415 \item Check/uncheck each of the above for analysis (e.g. zoom in on a certain song, or exclude a subset of subjects)
b@312 416 \item Click a mix to hear it (follow path in XML setup file, which is also embedded in the XML result file)
b@312 417 \item Box plot, confidence plot, scatter plot of values (for a given audioholder)
b@312 418 \item Timeline for a specific subject (see Python scripts), perhaps re-playing the experiment in X times realtime. (If actual realtime, you could replay the audio...)
b@312 419 \item Distribution plots of any radio button and number questions (drop-down menu with `pretest', `posttest', ...; then drop-down menu with question `IDs' like `gender', `age', ...; make pie chart/histogram of these values over selected range of XMLs)
b@312 420 \item All `comments' on a specific audioelement
b@312 421 \item A `download' button for a nice CSV of various things (values, survey responses, comments) people might want to use for analysis, e.g. when XML scares them
b@315 422 \item Validation of setup XMLs (easily spot `errors', like duplicate IDs or URLs, missing/dangling tags, ...)
b@312 423 \end{itemize}
b@312 424
b@312 425 A subset of the above would already be nice for this paper.
b@312 426
b@308 427 Some pictures here please.
b@308 428
b@316 429 \section{Concluding remarks and future work}
b@308 430
b@317 431 The code and documentation can be pulled or downloaded from \url{code.soundsoftware.ac.uk/projects/webaudioevaluationtool}.
b@308 432
b@317 433 [Talking a little bit about what else might happen. Unless we really want to wrap this up. ]
nicholas@328 434
nicholas@328 435 \cite{schoeffler2015mushra} gives a 'checklist' for subjective evaluation of audio systems. The Web Audio Evaluation Toolbox meets most of its given requirements including remote testing, crossfading between audio streams, collecting browser information, utilising UI elements and working with various audio formats including uncompressed PCM or WAV format.
b@317 436 % remote
b@317 437 % language support (not explicitly stated)
b@317 438 % crossfades
n@327 439 % choosing speakers/sound device from within browser? --- NOT POSSIBLE, can only determine channel output counts and its up to the hardware to determine
b@317 440 % collect information about software and sound system
b@317 441 % buttons, scales, ... UI elements
b@317 442 % must be able to load uncompressed PCM
b@317 443
b@317 444 [What can we not do? `Method of adjustment', as in \cite{schoeffler2015mushra} is another can of worms, because, like, you could adjust lots of things (volume is just one of them, that could be done quite easily). Same for using input signals like the participant's voice. Either leave out, or mention this requires modification of the code we provide.]
b@308 445
b@308 446 %
b@308 447 % The following two commands are all you need in the
b@308 448 % initial runs of your .tex file to
b@308 449 % produce the bibliography for the citations in your paper.
b@308 450 \bibliographystyle{abbrv}
b@308 451 \bibliography{WAC2016} % sigproc.bib is the name of the Bibliography in this case
b@308 452 % You must have a proper ".bib" file
b@308 453 % and remember to run:
b@308 454 % latex bibtex latex latex
b@308 455 % to resolve all references
b@308 456 %
b@308 457 % ACM needs 'a single self-contained file'!
b@308 458 %
b@308 459 \end{document}