A Comparison of Methodologies to Investigate the Influence of Light on the Atmosphere of a Space

References

• Arneill AB, Devlin AS. 2002. Perceived quality of care: the influence of the waiting room environment. J Environ Psychol. 22:345–360. doi:10.1006/jevp.2002.0274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beute F, De Kort YAW. 2013. Salutogenic effects of the environment: review of health protective effects of nature and daylight. Appl Psychol-Hlth We. 6:67–95. doi:10.1111/aphw.12019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun KM, Fairchild MD, Alessi PJ. 1996. Viewing techniques for cross-media image comparisons. Color Res Appl. 21:6–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [CIE] Commission International de l’Éclairage. 2014. Guidance towards best practice in psychophysical procedures used when measuring relative spatial brightness. Vienna (Austria): Commission International de l’Éclairage. CIE Report 212:2014. 65 p.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale (NY): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Countryman CC, Jang S. 2006. The effects of atmospheric elements on customer impression: the case of hotel lobbies. Int J Contemp Hosp M. 18:534–545. doi:10.1108/09596110610702968.
   Google Scholar
• Custers PJM, De Kort YAW, Ijsselsteijn WA, De Kruiff ME. 2010. Lighting in retail environments: atmosphere perception in the real world. Lighting Res Technol. 42:331–343. doi:10.1177/1477153510377836.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durak A, Camgöz ON, Yener C, Güvenç D, Gürçınar Y. 2007. Impact of lighting arrangements and illuminances on different impressions of a room. Build Environ. 42:3476–3482. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.10.048.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairchild MD, Reniff L. 1995. Time course of chromatic adaptation for color-appearance judgements. J Opt Soc Am A. 12:824–833. doi:10.1364/JOSAA.12.000824.
   Google Scholar
• Faul F, Erdfelder, E, Lang, A-G, Buchner, A. 2007. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 39:175-191.
   Google Scholar
• Field A. 2009. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 2nd ed. London (UK): SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Flynn JE, Spencer TJ, Martyniuk O, Hendrick O. 1973. Interim study of procedures for investigating the effect of light on impressions and behavior. J Illum Eng Soc. 3:87–94. doi:10.1080/00994480.1973.10732231.
   Google Scholar
• Fotios S, Atli D. 2012. Comparing judgments of visual clarity and spatial brightness through an analysis of studies using the category rating procedure. J Illum Eng Soc. 4:261–281.
   Google Scholar
• Fotios S, Cheal C. 2010a. Stimulus range bias explains the outcome of preferred-illuminance adjustments. Lighting Res Technol. 42:433–447. doi:10.1177/1477153509356018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fotios SA, Cheal C. 2010b. A comparison of simultaneous and sequential brightness judgements. Lighting Res Technol. 42:183–197. doi:10.1177/1477153509355506.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fotios SA, Houser KW. 2009. Research methods to avoid bias in categorical ratings of brightness. LEUKOS. 5:167–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haans A. 2014. The natural preference in people’s appraisal of light. J Environ Psychol. 39:51–61. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.04.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes AF. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York (NY): Guilford Press. 507 p.
   Google Scholar
• Heerwagen JH, Heerwagen DR. 1986. Lighting & psychological comfort. Light Design Appl. 6:47–51.
   Google Scholar
• Houser KW, Tiller DK. 2003. Measuring the subjective response to interior lighting : paired comparisons and semantic differential scaling. Lighting Res Technol. 35:7–9. doi:10.1191/1365782803li073oa.
   Google Scholar
• Houser KW, Tiller DK, Bernecker CA, Mistrick RG. 2002. The subjective response to linear fluorescent direct/indirect lighting systems. Lighting Res Technol. 34:243–264. doi:10.1191/1365782802li039oa.
   Google Scholar
• Kuijsters A, Redi J, De Ruyter B, Seuntiëns PJH, Heynderickx IEJ. 2012. Effects of ageing on atmosphere perception. Proceedings of Experincing Light 2012 International Conference on the Effects of Light on Wellbeing, Eindhoven, 12-13 November 2012..
   Google Scholar
• Lakens D. 2013. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol. 4:1–12. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu X, Luo M, Li H. 2014. A study of atmosphere perceptions in a living room. Lighting Res Technol. 47(5):581–594. doi:10.1177/1477153514528934.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loe L, Mansfield KP, Rowlands E. 1994. Appearance of lit environment and its relevance in lighting design: experimental study. Lighting Res Technol. 26:119–133. doi:10.1177/096032719402600301.
   Google Scholar
• Moscoso C, Matusiak B. 2015. From windows to daylighting systems: how daylight affects the aesthetic perception of architecture. Proceedings of the 28th CIE Session; 2015, 28 June – 4 July 2015, Manchester (UK).
   Google Scholar
• Moscoso C, Matusiak B, Svensson UP, Orleanski K. 2015. Analysis of stereoscopic images as a new method for daylighting studies. ACM T Appl Percept. 11(4):1-21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murdoch MJ, Stokkermans MGM, Lambooij M. 2015. Towards perceptual accuracy in 3D visualizations of illuminated indoor environments. J Solid State Lighting. 2:1-12. doi:10.1186/s40539-015-0029-6.
   Google Scholar
• Naqshbandi MM, Munir RS. 2011. Atmospheric elements and personality: impact on hotel lobby impressions. World Applied Sciences Journal. 15:785–792.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne JW, Overbay A. 2004. The power of outliers (and why researchers should always check for them). Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. 9(6):1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Poulton EC. 1977. Quantitative subjective assessments are almost always biased, sometimes completely misleading. Brit J Psychol. 68:409–425. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1977.tb01607.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajae-Joordens R, Engel J. 2005. Paired comparisons in visual perception studies using small sample sizes. Displays. 26:1–7. doi:10.1016/j.displa.2004.09.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reinhard E, Stark M, Shirley P, Ferwerda J. 2002. Photographic tone reproduction for digital images. ACM T Graphic. 21:267–276. doi:10.1145/566654.566575.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ridder HD. 2001. Cognitive issues in image quality measurement. J Electron Imaging. 10:47–55. doi:10.1117/1.1335529.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell JA, Pratt G. 1980. A description of the affective quality attributed to environments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 38:311–322. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schielke T. 2015a. Influence of lighting design on marketing communication. LEUKOS. 11(3):109–124. doi:10.1080/15502724.2015.1020949.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schielke T. 2015b. Validity of simulations for lighting and brand image evaluation. Lighting Res Technol. 48(4):1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokkermans MGM, Chen Y, Murdoch MJ, Vogels IMLC, Heynderickx IEJ. 2015. Effect of daylight on atmosphere perception: comparison of a real space and visualizations. Proceedings Volume 9394, Human Vision and Electronic Imaging XX, SPIE/IS&T Electronic Imaging, 8–12 February 2015, San Francisco (CA).
   Google Scholar
• Stokkermans MGM, Heynderickx IEJ. 2014. Temporal dark adaptation to spatially complex backgrounds: effect of an additional light source. J Opt Soc Am. 31:1485–1494. doi:10.1364/JOSAA.31.001485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokkermans MGM, Vogels IMLC, De Kort YAW, Heynderickx IEJ. 2017. Relation between the perceived atmosphere of a lit environment and perceptual attributes of light. Lighting Res Technol. doi:10.1177/1477153517722384.
   Google Scholar
• Stokkermans MGM, Vogels IMLC, Heynderickx IEJ. 2016. The effect of spatial luminance distribution on dark adaptation. J Vision. 16:1–15. doi:10.1167/16.8.11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thurstone L. 1927. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev. 34:273–386. doi:10.1037/h0070288.
   Google Scholar
• Tiller DK, Rea MS. 1992. Semantic differential scaling: prospects in lighting research. Lighting Res Technol. 24(1):43–51.
   Google Scholar
• Tiller DK, Veitch JA. 1995. Perceived room brightness: pilot study on the effect of luminance distribution. Lighting Res Technol. 27:93–101. doi:10.1177/14771535950270020401.
   Google Scholar
• Veitch JA, Geerts J, Charles KE, Newsham GR, Marguardt CJG. 2005. Satisfaction with lighting in open-plan offices: COPE field findings. Proceedings of Lux Europa 19-21 September 2005, Berlin, p. 414–417.
   Google Scholar
• Vogels IMLC. 2008. Atmosphere metrics: a tool to quantify perceived atmosphere. The international symposium Creating an Atmosphere, 10-12 September 2008, Grenoble, France.
   Google Scholar
• Vogels IMLC, De Vries M, Erp Van TAM. 2008. Effect of coloured light on atmosphere perception. Stockholm (Sweden): International Colour Association. p. 1– 6.
   Google Scholar
• Wang H, Luo MR, Liu P, Yang Y, Zheng Z, Liu X. 2014. A study of atmosphere perception of dynamic coloured light. Lighting Res Technol. 46:661–675. doi:10.1177/1477153513506591.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westfall P, Kevin S, Henning S. 2013. Understanding advanced statistical methods. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press. 569 p.
   Google Scholar