READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE. https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright
Vous avez des questions? Nous pouvons vous aider. Pour communiquer directement avec un auteur, consultez la première page de la revue dans laquelle son article a été publié afin de trouver ses coordonnées. Si vous n’arrivez pas à les repérer, communiquez avec nous à PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.
Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team at
PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the first page of the publication for their contact information.
NRC Publications Archive
Archives des publications du CNRC
This publication could be one of several versions: author’s original, accepted manuscript or the publisher’s version. / La version de cette publication peut être l’une des suivantes : la version prépublication de l’auteur, la version acceptée du manuscrit ou la version de l’éditeur.
Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at
Quantifying lighting quality based on experimental investigations of
end user performance and preference
Veitch, J. A.; Newsham, G. R.
https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/droits
L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB.
NRC Publications Record / Notice d'Archives des publications de CNRC:
https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=7c52ccfe-669f-44ae-b5b0-06fbd09665d8 https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=7c52ccfe-669f-44ae-b5b0-06fbd09665d8
Quantifying lighting quality based
on experimental investigations of
end user performance and
preference
Veitch, J.A.; Newsham, G.R.
NRCC-38940
A version of this document is published in / Une version de ce document se trouve dans:
Right Light Three : 3rd European Conference on Energy- Efficient Lighting, Newcastle, U.K. June,
18-21, 1995, pp. 119-127
The material in this document is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act, by Canadian laws, policies, regulations and international agreements. Such provisions serve to identify the information source and, in specific instances, to prohibit reproduction of materials without written permission. For more information visit http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showtdm/cs/C-42
Les renseignements dans ce document sont protégés par la Loi sur le droit d’auteur, par les lois, les politiques et les règlements du Canada et des accords internationaux. Ces dispositions permettent d’identifier la source de l’information et, dans certains cas, d’interdire la copie de documents sans permission écrite. Pour obtenir de plus amples renseignements : http://lois.justice.gc.ca/fr/showtdm/cs/C-42
3rd European Conference on Enei'QY,-Efficient Ughting
LIGHTING SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS
JENNIFER A. VEITCH, Ph.D.
National Research Council Canada, Bldg M-24, 1500 Montreal Road, Ottawa, ON K1A OR6 GUY R. NEWSHAM, Ph.D.
National Research Council Canada, Bldg M-24, 1500 Montreal Road, Ottawa, ON K1A OR6
ABSTRACT
QUANTIFYING LIGHTING QUALITY BASED
ON EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS OF
END USER PERFORMANCE AND PREFERENCE
Codes and standards mandating the use of energy-efficient lighting are being adopted world-wide; however, critics fear that as the power used for lighting drops, the quality of the lit environment will decline. One problem facing lighting designers and engineers is that there is no commonly-accepted metric of lighting quality that predicts the effects of the luminous environment on the occupants. It is commonly assumed that poor lighting quality has a negative impact on the abilities of people to perform their work; however, few studies have attempted to quantify lighting quality as a whole, and none of these has attempted to relate quantified quality to task performance. This paper offers a definition of lighting quality in terms of the success or failure of a lighting design to meet the needs of end users, and outlines an experimental approach to the quantification and prediction of lighting quality based on behavioural research data.
INTRODUCTION
The search for "lighting quality" has the characteristics of a modem quest for the Holy Grail. Lighting energy conservation efforts following the oil crisis in the mid-1970s were accompanied by a chorus of concern that the quality of the lit environment would decline, particularly if energy-efficiency was approached in a simplistic manner, such as delamping (e.g., Benya & Webster 1977; Chase 1977; Florence 1976). The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Illumination Roundtable II in 1981 called for research into lighting quality in terms of both subjective and physiological effects ("Illumination Roundtable Ill" 1984). The Lighting Research Institute, Electric Power Research Institute, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, and U.S. Department of Energy co-sponsored a large field survey of photometric conditions and occupant ratings of lighting quality in the mid-1980s (Collins, Fisher, Gillette, & Marans 1989). Yet, in 1994 Louis Erhardt wrote, "it may be impossible to establish criteria that ensure effective orientation and provide adequate visibility for the varying needs of work, play, and understanding" (Erhardt 1994, p. 9).
NORTHERN ELECTRIC
ｾ＠
...
. ! •• - . . ... ..:. I : tI
Although criteria defining good or effective lighting do not yet exist, there is general agreement that guality differs from quantity. Lesley Wheel, speaking during a panel discussion of lighting designers in 1985, said that " ... the lighting design process ... is to make a pleasant space, and then see if you have enough light to see by." (Wagner 1985, p. 161 ). Stein, Reynolds, and McGuinness took a similar view, defining lighting quality as "a term used to describe all of the factors in a lighting installation not directly connected with quantity of illumination" (Stein et al. 1986, p. 887). The Utopian nature of lighting quality is revealed in these broad definitions. We light spaces to fulfil a wide variety of human needs. There is no unitary measure of the fit between those goals and the achieved states: Perfect fit is an unmeasurable ideal. Successful lighting in one situation might prove impractical in another because of constraints that include architectural dimensions, regulatory restrictions, economic considerations, individual differences and aesthetic assessments.Whereas energy use was once a low-priority constraint, the threat of ecological collapse, and immediate economic conditions, have increased its importance. Many jurisdictions have legislated energy codes that restrict building energy consumption for all uses, including lighting (e.g. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers 1989; Canadian Cddes Centre 1995). Quality lighting systems today must meet or better these energy-use ' levels so that both the environment and resources are conserved (meeting long-term human needs}, while still meeting immediate task, social, behavioural, aesthetic, emotional, health, and safety needs. Our standards for lighting quality change as our values change, but the central goal of meeting human needs remains.
The present paper attempts to clarify the discussion by taking a pragmatic approach to the establishment of lighting quality. We define lighting quality and review some of the existing knowledge about how to achieve good lighting quality. Finally, we present an experimental design for research in progress at the National Research Council Canada. The project's goal is to establish a quantitative prediction, from photometric conditions, of the success or failure of an office lighting design to meet human needs.
QUALITY DEFINED
In the language of the social sciences, lighting quality is a construct, which is an intangible condition (Ghiselli, Campbell' & Zedeck 1981 ). There is no physical counterpart to a construct; we assess it indiredtly, using behavioural measures. Behavioural measures can include: responses to semantic differential scales; Likert-scale responses to statements of opinion, ratings of mood, sa;tisfaction, comfort, or aesthetic judgements; performance measures on motor or cognitive (intellectual} tasks; direct observation of social interaction or individual behaviours; and examination of behavioural traces (e.g., wear patterns in carpet). In the social sciences, a great deal of attention is paid to the validity of the measures that are used to assess a particular construct. One wishes to be confident that the data collected in a study do represent the intended construct, and that all · the dimensions of the construct are included. To establish good construct validity usually requires multiple measures of the construct (Cook & Campbell 1979).
Lighting research in "psychological aspects" or "subjective reactions" generally has failed to meet the standards of adequate construct validity and reliability (cf., Gifford 1994; Kaye 1992; Tiller 1990). One problem has been the use of a small number of arbitrarily-chosen semantic differential scales, or a small number of ratings of satisfaction or comfort, to attempt to assess the quality of a lit environment. Comparison between studies is nearly impossible because different researchers have used different sets of scales (compare, for example, Flynn, Spencer, Martyniuk, & Hendrick [1973], with Bernecker [1980]} . Their documentation of the outcome measures falls far short of the detail normally demanded by behavioural scientists, which creates problems for later re-evaluation of the data (Gifford, Hine, & Veitch in press).
More recently, Bean and Bell (1992) have suggested that their CSP index is predictive of comfort, satisfaction, and performance. They achieved a reasonable correlation between the CSP index - a quantity derived from photometric measurement of the office environment - and opinion ratings of the office lighting on a scale from Mexcellent'" to Mpoor". This might be said to represent satisfaction; however, they did not collect data concerning performance or comfort, and therefore could not validate their claim to predict these outcomes.
Examination of a multi-faceted concept· such as lighting quality should not rest on a single measurement nor a single measurement technique {cf., Tiller 1990). The quality of a lit environment consists in its support for many human needs. We provide light in support of:
• visual performance;
• post-visual performance (task performance and behavioural effects other than vision); • social interaction and communication;
• mood state (happiness, alertness, satisfaction, preference); • health;
• aesthetic judgements (assessments of the appearance of the space or the lighting). Lighting quality, then, is not directly measurable, but is an emergent state created by the interplay of the lit environment and the person in that environment. Good lighting quality exists when a lighting system:
• creates good conditions for seeing;
• supports task performance or setting-appropriate behaviours; • fosters desirable interaction and communication;
• contributes to situationally-appropriate mood;
• provides good conditions for health and avoids ill-effects; • contributes to the aesthetic appreciation of the space.
To assess the quality of a lit environment is to measure its effects on people, taking into account all the relevant outcomes for the setting and individuals using the space. Ughting quality is not inherent in a space or a lighting design, but in its effects on people. Although it has no absolute measure, it is possible to use standard behavioural science research methods to predict the effects of a given lighting design on the likely users of a given setting. The experimental design described below takes just such an approach.
QUALITY CONDITIONS
Almost the entire scope of research into the behavioural effects of lighting is potentially relevant to the determination of good-quality lighting conditions; however, space limitations preclude an exhaustive review. Instead, we outline the principal lighting parameters that have been associated with dimensions of lighting quality, and direct the reader to influential papers on each topic.
Illuminance.
The luminance of the task, its contrast, and size are the critical variables for the provision of adequate light for visibility {Rea 1987; Rea & Ouellette 1988). Visibility is the principal criterion by which illuminance recommendations are judged; these are summarised well in such publications as the IES Lighting Handbook {Rea 1993).
The possibility that increasing illuminance improves task performance beyond its effects on vision has been a popular notion in this century, and may underlie the rise in illuminance recommendations, particularly in North America (Pansky 1985). Experimental evidence for this hypothesis was re-examined recently in a meta-analysis of several studies. Gifford, Hine and Veitch (in press) concluded that there is a relationship between rising illuminance levels and performance of office-type tasks, and the relationship is small to medium in size. However, it appears that the relationship is moderated by the adaptation time provided in
the experimental protocol. In studies with long adaptation times, there appeared to be no relationship between illuminance and performance. Improvements in performance with increasing illuminance (provided that the task luminance is above the lower limit of current recommendations) might be transitory; people might adjust to conditions that are no longer
novel. ·
Illuminance uniformity.
Uniformity has been said to be highly desirable, both across the working surface and across rooms. However, Slater and Boyce (1990) found that illuminance uniformity across a desk had no effect on task performance, and that ratings of the acceptability of uniformity conditions depended on the task. The least uniform condition was unacceptable for tasks that required use of the entire desk surface; however, in overall ratings of acceptability, none of the conditions was rated as "unacceptable". As regards the uniformity of illuminance between desks in an open office, ratios of 0.6 or better appear to be acceptable, although lower ratios may sometimes be acceptable, particularly at higher average illuminance (Slater, Perry, & Carter 1993).
Luminance.
To establish preferred luminances for office work, van Ooyen, van de Weijgert, and Begemann (1987) asked 180 participants to rate the brightness of the working plane and walls for four common office tasks. They reported that preferences for wall and working plane luminances depended on the task type; preferred luminances were lower for VDT-based tasks than for
reading, writing, or interviewing. For VDT -based tasks, wall luminances in the range 20-45 cdlm2
and working plane luminances in the range 40-65 cd/m2 were preferred. For other tasks, wall
luminances between 30-60 cd/m2 and working plane luminances from 45-1 05 cd/m2 were
preferred. The ratio of task, working plane, and wall luminance that was most preferred was 10:4:3. These values hold for enclosed offices at a horizontal illuminance of 750 lx.
Luminance distribution.
Probably the most influential investigations of the effects of lit environments on assessments of appearance are Flynn's (e.g., Flynn, Spencer, Martyniuk, & Hendrick 1973; Flynn, Hendrick, Spencer & Martyniuk 1979). Participants in his research rated the appearance of a conference room lit in a variety of ways on a set of semantic differential scales. These results were used to establish guidelines for establishing impressions of visual clarity, spaciousness, relaxation, privacy, and pleasantness, using lighting modes varying in their uniformity, brightness, and use of peripheral or overhead lighting. This work, however, has never been systematically replicated, nor repeated in other settings.
Another group have examined judgements of room lighting appearance on a different set of
semantic differential scales, and find that judgements vary on dimensions of brightness and
interest (Hawkes, Loe, and Rowlands 1979; Loe, Mansfield, & Rowlands 1994). They find that both factors relate to luminance characteristics of the field of view, 40° wide in the horizontal plane at eye level. The evaluation of brightness relates to the average luminance, and interest
to the luminance contrast. ·
Spectral power distribution.
Berman (1992) has theorised that the use of fluorescent lamps with peak output around 508 nm, where scotopic sensitivity peaks (which he calls scotopically-enriched light), could permit a substantial reduction in light levels from current practice. Scotopically-enriched light reduces pupil size, in comparison to equal levels of other light sources; smaller pupils increase depth of field. In laboratory studies, pupil size reductions with scotopically-enriched light were associated
with better performance on a challenging visual performance task (Berman, Fein, Jewett &
Ashford 1993, 1994). However, a review of studies from several laboratories found that under conditions more typical of common office practice, no effects of spectral power distribution on
visual performance have been observed (Veitch & McColl1994).
Evidence suggests, moreover, that there are complex interaction effects of illuminance and lamp spectral power distribution on cognitive task performance and social behaviours (Baron, Rea, & Daniels 1992). The effects of scotopically-enriched light on aspects of lighting quality
other than visual performance are as yet unknown. Flicker.
Complaints about eyestrain, headaches, and poor vision ttiat have been associated with fluorescent lighting might be related to the modulation rate of these lamps. Wilkins (1986) found that 1 00 Hz modulation of fluorescent lamps disrupted saccadic eye movements such that subjects tended to overshoot the target when compared to saccadic eye movements under lamps at 20 kHz modulation. Veitch and McColl (in preparation) found that visual performance was improved under 20kHz modulation in comparison to 120Hz modulation. Wilkins, Nimmo-Smith, Slater, and Bedocs (1989) found that the incidence of headaches and eyestrain was reduced by half when high-frequency ballasts replaced low-frequency ballasts in a field experiment.
Lighting systems.
Collins et al. (1989) reported a detailed analysis of both subjective and objective data from the substantial database created by the Lighting Research Institute, Electric Power Research Institute, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, and U.S. Department of Energy co-sponsored lighting quality field study . Lighting quality was measured as the average of ratings on four questions concerning satisfaction with the workspace lighting.. It was clear that of the seven categories of lighting systems in use in the surveyed buildings, the least satisfactory was indirect-furniture-mounted fluorescent lighting, despite the fact that many of these workstations had higher-than-average desktop illuminances. These same systems provided low average luminance; they could be characterised as providing extremes of bright, and high luminance ratios.
Marans and Van (1989) reported a different analysis of the data, examining the relationship between the degree of enclosure and the objective and subjective attributes of environmental satisfaction. Lighting quality was an important predictor of environmental satisfaction for both open and enclosed offices, but to a greater extent for occupants of enclosed offices than open-plan ones. This analysis also found that privacy was less important in open-open-plan offices than lighting quality; and furthermore, that the degree to which occupants were able to manipulate or to control their environments (lighting included) did not influence their global satisfaction with their workplaces.
Katzev (1992) tested the effects of varying lighting designs in single-person enclosed offices mocked-up in a laboratory setting. One of the offices was lit in a traditional way with recessed troffers and prismatic lenses, maintaining 1 000 lx on the desktop. Three experimental offices were lit with varying types of energy-efficient lighting: direct, recessed troffers with parabolic louvers and wall-washing; ceiling-mounted direct/indirect luminaires and wall-washing; or, direct, recessed troffers with no wall washing. All three maintained 350 lx at the desktop. The direct/indirect room was rated most preferred of the four. There were no effects of lighting design on a proofreading task nor on a spreadsheet entry task. Reading comprehension, however, was highest in the room with the direct/indirect system. Katzev did not discuss an effect on a typing task in which fewer words were typed in the direct/indirect room than in the other offices.
Summary.
Investigations into the effects of the lit environment on human performance, satisfaction, health, visibility, and aesthetic judgements have identified many parameters of lighting systems and lighting design that influence the outcomes that collectively define lighting quality. None have combined task performance, satisfaction, and aesthetic judgements with systematic variation in lighting design. Many of the investigations suffer from serious problems in research design, measurement, and analysis that make causal attributions impossible, or that weaken the possible generalisations of the results (Gifford, 1994; Veitch & McColl, 1994). Although we have a wealth of knowledge and a history of partial attempts, we lack a systematic understanding of how to achieve high-quality lighting for offices, based on careful empirical observation of the effects of lighting on people.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF LIGHTING QUALITY
The National Research Council Canada has begun a three-year series of experiments whose objective is to develop a means for predicting the quality of a lighting system in terms of its effects on end users. As a starting point, we dScided to examine lighting quality for an open-plan office including computers, The experiments will take place in the Indoor Environment Research Facility (IERF) on our c'ampus in Ottawa, Canada. The IERF is a mocked-up 12,2 x 7,3 m (40 x 24ft) office designed for acoustics, lighting, ventilation, and indoor air quality research. The first of three experiments will be described here. It is a direct examination of the combined effects of lighting energy-efficiency and lighting quality, to determine whether or not the lowering of lighting power density (LPD) will have a deleterious effect on end users. The
lighting community has expressed such concerns for many years (e.g., Benya & Webster 1977;
Katzev 1992).
Previous experiments used arbitrarily-chosen lighting designs (e.g., Katzev 1992; Loe, Mansfield, & Rowlands 1994). The experimental conditions in this experiment are systematic variations of two variables: LPD and designers' lighting quality (DLQ). A panel of three experienced lighting practitioners (two lighting designers and one illuminating engineer) have been charged with the development of nine lighting configurations for a six-person open-plan
office. The nine configurations are all possible combinations of three LPD levels (8,61 W/m2
[0 ,8 W/ft2]; 17,22 W/m2 [1 ,6 W/ft2]; 30,13 W/m2 [2,8 W/ft2]) and three levels of DLQ: low,
medium, and high. The LPD levels were selected as representative of past practice, current energy codes, and future energy-use targets.
Broad criteria for the DLQ levels were agreed upon based on existing recommendations (Rea, 1993) and on information from colleagues and the designers' own experience. Table 1 shows these criteria. The constant level of desktop illuminance was selected to ensure that neither DLQ nor LPD would be varied simply by failing to provide adequate light for visibility. The selected range is recommended practice in North America for the types of visual tasks intended for use in this experiment.
Table 1.
Design Criteria for Designers' Power Densities Condition Average Low DLQ Medium DLQ High DLQ Waii:Task Luminance Ratio 1:8 or 8:1 1:6 or 6:1 1:4 or 4:1
Lighting Quality Conditions at all Lighting
% Direct:% VDT Indirect Glare 0:100 or 100:0 yes 80:20 or 20:80 some 50:50 no Desktop Illuminance (lx) 400-600 400-600 400-600
Apart from these criteria, the designers are free to use any combination of luminaires and lamps to achieve suitable lighting designs for each of the nine experimental conditions, but must come to a consensus about the nine configurations. These nine configurations will be computer-rendered to provide a visual description of the appearance of the open-plan office for each configuration. Volunteers from the lighting community (designers, engineers, and researchers) will be invited to provide independent ratings of the lighting quality of the nine configurations, using the renderings and written descriptive material. This process will establish the validity of the levels of the independent variable, DLQ.
The experimental design is a between-subjects factorial design in which each participant is randomly assigned to one of the nine experimental conditions. This procedure ensures that individual differences are equally distributed between the groups, and allows the inference that if any differences exist between the groups on any dependent measure, then the treatment (lighting configuration) is the cause of the effect (Kerlinger, 1986). There will be 30 participants
in each experimental condition, tested in groups of up to 6 at a time.
The participants will be recruited from office temporary services suppliers; they will be hired at the standard rate for a day's clerical work. Every care will be-taken to prevent any bias in their responding based on their awareness of the purposes of the experiment. Their day in the Indoor Environment Research Facility, regardless of which lighting configuration they experience, will consist of periods of work on word processing, reading, creativity, visual performance, and reaction-time tasks; questionnaires rating the aesthetics of the office, their comfort, satisfaction, and mood; and personality and demographic variables such as their personal beliefs and preferences about lighting, sensitivity to environmental conditions, age, education. The tasks will involve both computer-based and paper-based reading and responding.
The multiple measures of the lighting effects on end users will be matched by detailed photometric analysis of the lighting conditions, and used in multivariate statistical analyses. Our hypothesis is that DLQ will directly relate to performance, satisfaction, and mood; and, that the outcomes for end users will be independent of the LPD. The desired outcome is the creation of a mathematical model to predict, using photometric data, which lighting design will have the best outcome for end users. If successful, the project will provide both a useful tool for the lighting community to predict the quality of a lighting design for an office before its construction, and the knowledge that good lighting design need not be wasteful of precious energy resources. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project is supported by the Canadian Electrical Association (Agreement No. 9433 U 1 059}, Natural Resources Canada, the Panel on Energy Research and Development, and the National Research Council of Canada. The authors wish to thank Dale Tiller for his contributions to this project.
-REFERENCES
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers/Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. ( 1989}. Energy efficient design of new buildings except
new low-rise residential buildings. ASHRAEIIES standard 90. 1. Atlanta: American Society of
Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers.
Baron, R. A., Rea, M. S., & Daniels, S. G. (1992}. Effects of indoor lighting (illuminance and spectral distribution) on the performance of cognitive tasks and interpersonal behaviors: The potential mediating role of positive affect. Motivation and Emotion, 16, 1-33.
Bean, A. R., & Bell, R.I. (1992}. The CSP index: A practical measure of office lighting quality as perceived by the office worker. Lighting Research and Technology, 24, 215-225. ·
Benya, J. R., & Webster, J. C. (1977, September}. Energy conservation and lighting -the facts and the follies. Lighting Design+ Application, 7{9}, pp. 21-27.
Berman, S. M. (1992}. Energy efficiency consequences of scotopic sensitivity. Journal of the
Illuminating Engineering Society, 21, 3-14.
Berman, S. M., Fein, G., Jewett, D.
L.,
& Ashford, F. (1993}. Luminance-controlled pupil size affects Landolt-C task performance. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society,_22, 150-165.Berman, S. M., Fein, G., Jewett, D.
L.,
& Ashford, F. (1994}. Landolt-C recognition in elderly subjects is affected by scotopic intensity of surround illuminants. Journal of the IlluminatingEngineering Society, 23, 123-130.
Bemecker, C. A. (1980). The potential for design applications of luminance data. Journal of the
Illuminating Engineering Society, 10, 8-16.
Canadian Codes Centre. (1995). National energy code for buildings (Public Review No. 1.0). Ottawa, ON: National Research Council Canada.
Chase, V. D. {1977, September). Lighting and energy efficiency. Lighting Design +
Application, 7{9), pp. 14-18. ·
Collins, B. L., Fisher, W. S., Gillette, G.
L.,
& Marans, R. W. (1989). Evaluating officelighting environments: Second level analysis (NISTIR 89-4069). Gaithersburg, MD: U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis for
field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Erhardt,
L.
(1994, April). Views on the visual environment. Lighting Design + Application, 24(4), p. 9.Florence, N. (1976, September). Comparison of the energy effectiveness of office lighting systems. Lighting Design +Application, 6{9), pp. 30-36.
Flynn, J. E., Spencer, T. J., Martyniuk, 0., & Hendrick, C. (1973). Interim study of procedures for investigating the effect of light on impression and behavior. Journal of the
Illuminating Engineering Society, 3(2), 87-94.
Flynn, J. E., Hendrick, C., Spencer, T., & Martyniuk, 0. (1979). A guide to methodology procedures for measuring subjective impressions in lighting. Journal of the Illuminating
Engineering Society, 8, 95-11 0.
Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. {1981 ). Measurement theory for the
behavioral sciences. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman & Co.
Gifford, R. (1994). Scientific evidence for claims about full-spectrum lamps: Past and future. In J. A. Veitch (Ed.)., Full-spectrum lighting effects on performance, mood, and
health (IRC Internal Report No. 659, pp. 37-46). Ottawa, ON: National Research Council of
Canada, Institute for Research in Construction
Gifford, R., Hine, D. W., & Veitch, J. A. (in press). Meta-analysis for environment-behavior research, illuminated with a study of lighting level effects on office task performance. In G. T. Moore & R. W. Marans (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design (Vol. 4). New York: Plenum.
Hawkes, R. J., Loe, D.
L.,
& Rowlands, E. (1979). A note towards the understanding of lighting quality. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 8, 111-120."Illumination Roundtable Ill: Lighting research and education for the eighties". {1984, July). Lighting Design +Application, 14(7), pp. 27-34.
Kaye, S. M . . (1992, October). The psychology of lighting. Lighting Magazine, 6{5), pp.
26-28, 36. .
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Loe,
D. L.,
Mansfield, K. P., & Rowlands, E. (1994). Appearance of lit environment and its relevance in lighting design: Experimental study. Lighting Research and Technology, 26, 119-133.Marans, R. W., & Yan,
X.
(1989). Lighting quality .and environmental satisfaction in open and enclosed offices. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 6, 118-131 .Pansky, S. H. (1985, February). Lighting standards. Lighting Design+ Application, 15(2), pp. 46-48.
Rea, M. S. (1986). Toward a model of visual performance: Foundations and data.
Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 15, 41-57.
Rea, M. S. (Ed.). (1993). Lighting handbook: Reference and application (8th ed). New York: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
Rea, M. S., & Ouellette, M. J. -(1988). Visual performance using reaction times. Lighting
Research and Technology, 20, 139-153.
Slater, A. 1., & Boyce, P. R. (1990). Illuminance uniformity on desks: Where is the limit?
Lighting Research and Technology, 22, 165-174.
Slater, A. 1., Perry, M. J., & Carter, D. J. (1993). Illuminance differences between desks: Limits of acceptability. Lighting Research and Technology, 25, 91-103.
Stein, B., Reynolds, J. S., & McGuinness, W. J. (1986}. Mechanical and electrical
equipment for buildings (7th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Tiller, D. K. (1990). Towards a deeper understanding of psychological effects of lighting.
Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 19(2}, 59-65.
van Ooyen, M. H. F., van de Weijgert, J. A. C., & Begemann, S. H. A. (1987). Preferred luminances in offices. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 16, 152-156.
Veitch, J. A., & McColl. S. M. (1994). Full-spectrum fluorescent lighting effects on people: A critical review. In J. A. Veitch (Ed.), Full-spectrum lighting effects on performance, mood,
and health (IRC-IR-659, pp. 53-111). Ottawa, ON: National Research Council of Canada,
Institute for Research in Construction.
Veitch, J. A., & McColl, S. M. (in preparation). On the modulation of fluorescent light: Flicker rate and spectral distribution effects on visual performance and visual comfort. Manuscript in preparation, National Research Council of Canada, Institute for Research in Construction.
Wagner, W. F. (1985, April). Round Table: Lighting- an art supported by a technology.
Architectural Record, 173(4), pp. 156-163.
Wilkins, A. J. (1986). Intermittent illumination from visual display units and fluorescent lighting affects movements of the eyes across text. Human Factors, 28, 75-81.
Wilkins, A. J., Nimmo-Smith, 1., Slater, A. & Bedocs,
