Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Assessment of optimal ambient lighting: Comparision of two methods Cover

Assessment of optimal ambient lighting: Comparision of two methods

Open Access
|Dec 2023

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

One of the selected scenes used for the 2D Lightlab containing 20 objects. In total 15 different scenes were created.
One of the selected scenes used for the 2D Lightlab containing 20 objects. In total 15 different scenes were created.

Figure 2.

Psychometric curves for different subjects (panel A) and different scenes (panel B) using solid lines for the detection of objects (d), dashed lines for the recognition of objects (r). The black lines in panel B represent scenes used for further study in Experiment 2. The abscissa shows the resulting illumination level of the beamer. Panel C and D show scatter plots of the slope (abscissa) against the offset (ordinate) for detection (triangles) and recognition (squares). Lines were drawn for visibility.
Psychometric curves for different subjects (panel A) and different scenes (panel B) using solid lines for the detection of objects (d), dashed lines for the recognition of objects (r). The black lines in panel B represent scenes used for further study in Experiment 2. The abscissa shows the resulting illumination level of the beamer. Panel C and D show scatter plots of the slope (abscissa) against the offset (ordinate) for detection (triangles) and recognition (squares). Lines were drawn for visibility.

Figure 3.

Linear regression plots of the illumination at which 50% is detected (panel A and B) or recognized (panel C and D) as determined by the psychometric fit for people with VI (black triangles) and people without VI (grey stars) for the 2D Lightlab based on 1 scene (panel B and D) and different scenes (2D(7)).
Linear regression plots of the illumination at which 50% is detected (panel A and B) or recognized (panel C and D) as determined by the psychometric fit for people with VI (black triangles) and people without VI (grey stars) for the 2D Lightlab based on 1 scene (panel B and D) and different scenes (2D(7)).

Figure 4.

Upper panels regard the confidence in assessing optimal illumination levels (panel A) and assessing dazzling glare levels (panel B). Panel C indicates the confidence participants have that advised illumination levels will increase their ability conducting activities. Panel D shows the willingness to adapt one's home according to the illumination levels obtained from the experiment.
Upper panels regard the confidence in assessing optimal illumination levels (panel A) and assessing dazzling glare levels (panel B). Panel C indicates the confidence participants have that advised illumination levels will increase their ability conducting activities. Panel D shows the willingness to adapt one's home according to the illumination levels obtained from the experiment.

Figure 5.

Histogram of the responses asking people with VI to compare the 2D Lightlab and 3D Lightlab on the reliability of the assessment providing optimal lighting levels and dazzling glare.
Histogram of the responses asking people with VI to compare the 2D Lightlab and 3D Lightlab on the reliability of the assessment providing optimal lighting levels and dazzling glare.

Figure 6.

Schematic drawing on slope-determination based on linear fits as described by Cornelissen for the 3D (squares), 2D(1) (circles), and the 2D(7) (diamonds) Lightlab. The curve illustrates three fases, (1) positive slope, higher illumination levels resulting in an increased number of detected or recognized objects, (2) horizontal phase higher illustration levels result in no further improvement, (3) negative slope, higher illumination levels resulting in a decreased performance. The latter is only shown for the 2D(7) Lightlab given the different scenes.
Schematic drawing on slope-determination based on linear fits as described by Cornelissen for the 3D (squares), 2D(1) (circles), and the 2D(7) (diamonds) Lightlab. The curve illustrates three fases, (1) positive slope, higher illumination levels resulting in an increased number of detected or recognized objects, (2) horizontal phase higher illustration levels result in no further improvement, (3) negative slope, higher illumination levels resulting in a decreased performance. The latter is only shown for the 2D(7) Lightlab given the different scenes.

Data represent the number of objects that are detected or recognized more (second and third column) or less (fourth and fifth column) by a tenfold increase in illumination_

Increasing slopeDecreasing slope
VIPNon-VIPVIPNon-VIP
3D – detection0.25 log−1 (0.12)0.32 log−1 (0.06)−0.03 (0.12)0 (0)
3D – recogn0.29 log−1 (0.13)0.32 log−1 (0.06)−0.02 (0.09)0 (0)
2D(1) – detection0.28 log−1 (0.12)0.22 log−1 (0.05)−0.08 (0.12)−0.03 (0.06)
2D(1) – recogn0.28 log−1 (0.12)0.28 log−1 (0.04)−0.04 (0.14)−0.03 (0.06)
2D(7) – detection0.26 log−1 (0.14)0.22 log−1 (0.05)−0.09 (0.14)−0.06 (0.14)
2D(7) - recogn0.25 log−1 (0.11)0.30 log−1 (0.08)−0.11 (0.15)−0.03 (0.10)

Linear regression models for the four fits of figure 3_ Column R2 gives the explained variance of the linear regression models_ The goodness of the fit is provided by the last column providing the F-value and the accompanying p-value_

slopeoffsetR2F-value (p-value)
mean [2.5%–97.5%]mean [2.5%–97.5%]
Detection 3D-2D(1)0.87 [0.71–1.04]−3.4 [−3.6; −3.2]0.72111 (> 0.001)
Detection 3D-2D(7)0.83 [0.63–1.03]−3.2 [−3.5; −2.9]0.6170 (> 0.001)
Recognition 3D-2D(1)0.84 [0.69–0.99]−3.3 [−3.5; −3.1]0.74127 (> 0.001)
Recognition 3D-2D(7)0.89 [0.71–1.07]−3.3 [−3.5; −3.1]0.6997 (>0.001)

Group characteristics of the participants in the study_

VIP (n=40)Non-VIP (n=11)

Age (years) [min.–max.]54 [20–80]60 [51–76]

Female238

Ocular disease1
  • 16 Retinitis Pigmentosa or Usher syndrome

  • 7 Glaucoma

  • 5 macula degeneration

  • 3 macular oedema

  • 3 myopic degeneration

  • 2 retinal detachment

  • 2 Macular Pucker

  • 2 Optic neuropathy

  • 2 uveitis

  • 1 Non-Arteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy

  • 1 Retinopathy of Prematurity

  • 1 albinism

  • 1 keratitis

  • 1 meningitis encephalitis

  • 1 microphthalmos

  • 1 Idiopathic intracranial hypertension

  • 1 unknown

x

Visual acuity
< 0,3 LogMAR (>0.5)1511
0.3–0.5 logMAR (0.3–0.5)7
0.3–1 logMAR (0.1–0.3)13
>1 logMAR (<0.1)5

Contrast sensitivity
>1.6 logCS (normal)311
>1.2 logCS (near normal)12
>0.8 logCS (moderate)9
>0.8 logCS (severely reduced)
unknown

1.6
10

Reason for rehabilitation
Need for light170
glare80
both150

The conditions provided in the Lightlabs used during the study_ For the 2D Lightlab attenuation levels are given instead of the illumination level_

3D loc - 13D loc -23D loc 33D loc 42D
Nr participants5 (11 non VIP)305151 (11 non VIP)
Nr objects2445344520
Illumination levels (linear)1.5, 5, 15, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000 lux1, 3, 5, 15, 50, 150, 500, 1000, 2000 lux1.5, 5, 15, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000 lux5, 15, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000 lux0,00025, 0.0001, 0.0078, 0.031, 0.063, 0.125, 0.25 E (attenuation)
Illumination levels (logarithmic)0.2, 0.7, 1.2, 1.7, 2.0, 2.3, 2.7, 3.0, 3.3 log(lux)0.0, 0.5, 0.7, 1.2, 1.7, 2.2, 2.7, 3.0, 3.3 log(lux)0.2, 0.7, 1.2, 1.7, 2.0, 2.3, 2.7, 3.0, 3.3 log(lux)0.7, 1.2, 1.7, 2.0, 2.3, 2.7, 3.0, 3.3 log(lux)−3.6, −3.0, −2.1, −1.5, −1.2, −0.9, −0.6 logE
Colour temperature (K)3000 K2700 K3000 K2700 Kn.a.
Language: English
Accepted on: Aug 25, 2023
Published on: Dec 28, 2023
Published by: Guide Dogs NSW/ACT
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2023 Jan Koopman, Marleen van Aartrijk, Anne Cornelia Louisa Vrijling, published by Guide Dogs NSW/ACT
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.