1 / 36

Development of a TV Reception Navigation System Personalized with Viewing Habits

Development of a TV Reception Navigation System Personalized with Viewing Habits. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. 51, No. 2, MAY 2005. Tadashi Isobe, Masao Fujiwara, Hiroyuki Kaneta, Toshiya Morita, and Noriyoshi Uratani. bearhsu 2005/11/17. Index. Introduction

dale
Download Presentation

Development of a TV Reception Navigation System Personalized with Viewing Habits

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Development of a TV Reception Navigation System Personalized with Viewing Habits IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. 51, No. 2, MAY 2005 Tadashi Isobe, Masao Fujiwara, Hiroyuki Kaneta, Toshiya Morita, and Noriyoshi Uratani bearhsu 2005/11/17

  2. Index • Introduction • TV Watching Situation Today • TV Navigation System • Evaluation Tests • Results & Assessment • Conclusion

  3. Introduction • motivation • Investigate viewers’ selection behavior • Find out a good selection assisting method • Propose a navigation system for viewers • according to their habits • & occasional feelings

  4. 4 Main Facilities • Channel presetting • Program Recommendation • Program sorting • Program retrieval

  5. Index • Introduction • TV Watching Situation Today • TV Navigation System • Evaluation Tests • Results & Assessment • Conclusion

  6. Some Statistics • Since 1974, people watch TV 3.5hrs/day on avg. • Recently increase to 4:05/day • Purposely chosen • Diversion viewing • TV as an environmental furniture

  7. For a viewing individual • Favorite programs • So separate among individuals • Hardly explained by sex, age, occupation… • TV navigation system • Detects viewers’ taste from history • Handles not only concentrated viewing • Casual & diverted ways but also

  8. Index • Introduction • TV Watching Situation Today • TV Navigation System • Evaluation Tests • Results & Assessment • Conclusion

  9. Program selection methods Concentrated viewing Viewing while doing Something else Diversion viewing Doing something With TV on

  10. System Configuration Graphic Display Controller

  11. Service id D, t, u CH(service id) CPS Table (Channel preset Table) Channel Presetting • “Usual one please” D:holiday/weekdays t:time u:user id

  12. Program Recommendation • “I’ll leave it to you” • m= r i e • F= r1 r2 r3 … r256 i1 i2 i3 … i256 e1 e2 e3 … e256 • g=(g1 g2 g3 … g256) • Genre specifying vector

  13. Program Recommendation (cont)’ • RS(t)=mT hu(t) • Recommendation Score • hu(t)= Ru(t) Iu(t) Eu(t) Present Programs, g m=Fg RS(t)=mT hu(t) Top 7 programs at RS

  14. Program sorting • Viewers divided into 8 groups • “Laughter-/stimulation-seeker” • “Diversion seeking zapper” • “Romance-/fiction-oriented” • “Trendconscious TV devotee” • “Easy going interest-seeker” • “Barely interested” • “Wholesome and practical type” • “News-/culture-oriented”.

  15. Program sorting • IS=Gg • Interest Score • G=(G1u G2u G3u… G256u) IS=Gg

  16. Program retrieval • Data in SI words • List up keywords • in alphabetical order • Viewer chooses 1 keyword from list • Enter retrieval algorithm • list appropriate programs • most currently broadcasted first • Viewer can also use a keyword registered in PF

  17. Program retrieval (cont’) Present programs Segment into words Proposed keywords Program retrieval

  18. Emphasis on personalization • Recommendation • A low RS program chosen hu(t) updated • Program sorting • IGF table updated • Once the IGF table is changed, it’s more personalized to viewer • Retrieval • Update both hu(t) & IGF table

  19. Index • Introduction • TV Watching Situation Today • TV Navigation System • Evaluation Tests • Results & Assessment • Conclusion

  20. Program data & Evaluators • Tokyo, 13 days in 2004 • 1 Navigation system/ 1 Evaluator • 38 evaluators in total Older, avg.64 Younger, avg.29

  21. Some discoveries • Mainly 2 kinds of viewing types • News-/culture-oriented • Diversion-seeking zapper • In the morning, Information’s needed

  22. Test procedures/ result • General evaluation • Program recommendation • Program sorting • Evaluators’ impression

  23. General evaluation morning afternoon evening

  24. Some discoveries • “Channel presetting” • is more needed in the morning • “Retrieve” • Afternoon / evening • “Recommendation” & “Sorting” • On a medium necessity

  25. recommendation

  26. Some discoveries • Morning • P better than A • Afternoon & evening • Older • P better than A • Younger • No significant difference

  27. Program sorting

  28. Some discoveries • Personalizing effect • Still make some effect • But less than “Recommendation”

  29. Evaluators’ impression

  30. Efficient vs. Rich/Enjoyable • R: Recommend • A: all 4 • S: Sorting • Y: younger • O: older

  31. Index • Introduction • TV Watching Situation Today • TV Navigation System • Evaluation Tests • Results & Assessment • Conclusion

  32. Results & Assessment • None of the methods was unnecessary • “Channel presetting” => morning • “Program retrieval” => evening • “informative” is needed more • In the morning • Older => efficient • Younger => efficient & Rich/Enjoyable

  33. Index • Introduction • TV Watching Situation Today • TV Navigation System • Evaluation Tests • Results & Assessment • Conclusion

  34. conclusion • Developed a TV reception navigation system easy to use for all generations of viewers • Cope with diversion viewing NOWADAYS • Incorporates recommending facility • None of the 4 facilities is unimportant • Further more… • Optimization of these algorithms would be a more important task

  35. The End~

More Related