Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Speech Quality Assessment in Crowdsourcing: Comparison Category Rating Method

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2104.04371 v1 pith:LB343H7X submitted 2021-04-09 cs.MM eess.AS

Speech Quality Assessment in Crowdsourcing: Comparison Category Rating Method

classification cs.MM eess.AS
keywords testcrowdsourcingqualitymethodspeechcategoryprocedurerating
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Traditionally, Quality of Experience (QoE) for a communication system is evaluated through a subjective test. The most common test method for speech QoE is the Absolute Category Rating (ACR), in which participants listen to a set of stimuli, processed by the underlying test conditions, and rate their perceived quality for each stimulus on a specific scale. The Comparison Category Rating (CCR) is another standard approach in which participants listen to both reference and processed stimuli and rate their quality compared to the other one. The CCR method is particularly suitable for systems that improve the quality of input speech. This paper evaluates an adaptation of the CCR test procedure for assessing speech quality in the crowdsourcing set-up. The CCR method was introduced in the ITU-T Rec. P.800 for laboratory-based experiments. We adapted the test for the crowdsourcing approach following the guidelines from ITU-T Rec. P.800 and P.808. We show that the results of the CCR procedure via crowdsourcing are highly reproducible. We also compared the CCR test results with widely used ACR test procedures obtained in the laboratory and crowdsourcing. Our results show that the CCR procedure in crowdsourcing is a reliable and valid test method.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.