@article{KunzHirthSchweitzeretal.2021,
  author    = {Kunz, Felix and Hirth, Matthias and Schweitzer, Tilmann and Linz, Christian and Goetz, Bernhard and Stellzig-Eisenhauer, Angelika and Borchert, Kathrin and B{\"o}hm, Hartmut},
  title     = {Subjective perception of craniofacial growth asymmetries in patients with deformational plagiocephaly},
  series = {Clinical Oral Investigations},
  volume    = {25},
  journal   = {Clinical Oral Investigations},
  issn      = {1432-6981},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00784-020-03417-y},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-232803},
  pages     = {525-537},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Objectives The present investigation aimed to evaluate the subjective perception of deformational cranial asymmetries by different observer groups and to compare these subjective perceptions with objective parameters. Materials and methods The 3D datasets of ten infants with different severities of deformational plagiocephaly (DP) were presented to 203 observers, who had been subdivided into five different groups (specialists, pediatricians, medical doctors (not pediatricians), parents of infants with DP, and laypersons). The observers rated their subjective perception of the infants' cranial asymmetries using a 4-point Likert-type scale. The ratings from the observer groups were compared with one another using a multilevel modelling linear regression analysis and were correlated with four commonly used parameters to objectively quantify the cranial asymmetries. Results No significant differences were found between the ratings of the specialists and those of the parents of infants with DP, but both groups provided significantly more asymmetric ratings than did pediatricians, medical doctors, or laypersons. Moreover, the subjective perception of cranial asymmetries correlated significantly with commonly used parameters for objectively quantifying cranial asymmetries. Conclusions Our results demonstrate that different observer groups perceive the severity of cranial asymmetries differently. Pediatricians' more moderate perception of cranial asymmetries may reduce the likelihood of parents to seek therapeutic interventions for their infants. Moreover, we identified some objective symmetry-related parameters that correlated strongly with the observers' subjective perceptions. Clinical relevance Knowledge about these findings is important for clinicians when educating parents of infants with DP about the deformity.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BorchertSeufertGamboaetal.2020,
  author    = {Borchert, Kathrin and Seufert, Anika and Gamboa, Edwin and Hirth, Matthias and Hoßfeld, Tobias},
  title     = {In Vitro vs In Vivo: Does the Study's Interface Design Influence Crowdsourced Video QoE?},
  series = {Quality and User Experience},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Quality and User Experience},
  issn      = {2366-0139},
  doi       = {10.1007/s41233-020-00041-2},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-235586},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Evaluating the Quality of Experience (QoE) of video streaming and its influence factors has become paramount for streaming providers, as they want to maintain high satisfaction for their customers. In this context, crowdsourced user studies became a valuable tool to evaluate different factors which can affect the perceived user experience on a large scale. In general, most of these crowdsourcing studies either use, what we refer to, as an in vivo or an in vitro interface design. In vivo design means that the study participant has to rate the QoE of a video that is embedded in an application similar to a real streaming service, e.g., YouTube or Netflix. In vitro design refers to a setting, in which the video stream is separated from a specific service and thus, the video plays on a plain background. Although these interface designs vary widely, the results are often compared and generalized. In this work, we use a crowdsourcing study to investigate the influence of three interface design alternatives, an in vitro and two in vivo designs with different levels of interactiveness, on the perceived video QoE. Contrary to our expectations, the results indicate that there is no significant influence of the study's interface design in general on the video experience. Furthermore, we found that the in vivo design does not reduce the test takers' attentiveness. However, we observed that participants who interacted with the test interface reported a higher video QoE than other groups.},
  language  = {en}
}