Assessing the Visual Comfort, Visual Interest of Sunlight Patterns, and View Quality under Different Window Conditions in an Open-Plan Office

References

• Abboushi B, Elzeyadi I. 2018. The Relationship between sunlight pattern geometry and visual comfort in daylit offices. In: Wingert-Playdon K, Rashed-Ali H, editors. 2018: architectural research for a global community, Temple University, Jefferson University and Drexel University. Philadelphia, PA. https://www.arcc-journal.org/index.php/repository/article/view/465.
   Google Scholar
• Abboushi B, Elzeyadi I, Taylor R, Sereno M. 2019. Fractals in architecture: the visual interest, preference, and mood response to projected fractal light patterns in interior spaces. J Environ Psychol. 61:57–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agaoglu S, Agaoglu MN, Breitmeyer B, Ogmen H. 2015. A statistical perspective to visual masking. Vision Res. 115:23–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allan AC, Garcia-Hansen V, Isoardi G, Smith SS. 2019. Subjective assessments of lighting quality: a measurement review. LEUKOS - J Illum Eng Soc North Am. 15(2–3):115–126.
   Google Scholar
• Altomonte S, Kent MG, Tregenza PR, Wilson R. 2016. Visual task difficulty and temporal influences in glare response. Build Environ. 95:209–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aries MBC, Veitch J, Newsham GR. 2010. Windows, view, and office characteristics predict physical and psychological discomfort. J Environ Psychol. 30(4):533–541.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bachmann T. 1984. The process of perceptual retouch: nonspecific afferent activation dynamics in explaining visual masking. Percept Psychophys. 35(1):69–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beute F, de Kort YAW. 2014. Salutogenic effects of the environment: review of health protective effects of nature and daylight. Appl Psychol Heal Well-Being. 6(1):67–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boubekri M, Boyer LL. 1992. Effect of window size and sunlight presence on glare. Light Res Technol. 247(2):69–74.
   Google Scholar
• Boubekri M, Hull RB, Boyer LL. 1991. Impact of window size and sunlight penetration on office workers’ mood and satisfaction: a novel way of assessing sunlight. Environ Behav. 23(4):474–493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bovill C. 1996. Fractal geometry in architecture and design. Basel: Birkhäuser Basel.
   Google Scholar
• Boyce P, Hunter C, Howlett O. 2003. The benefits of daylight through windows. Light Research Cent. 1(1):1–88.
   Google Scholar
• Chamilothori K, Chinazzo G, Rodrigues J, Dan-Glauser ES, Wienold J, Andersen M. 2019. Subjective and physiological responses to façade and sunlight pattern geometry in virtual reality. Build Environ. 150:144–155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chamilothori K, Wienold J, Andersen M 2016. Daylight patterns as a means to influence the spatial ambiance: a preliminary study. 3rd Int Congr Ambiances. Volos. p. 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Chellappa SL, Steiner R, Blattner P, Oelhafen P, Götz T, Cajochen C. 2011. Non-visual effects of light on melatonin, alertness and cognitive performance: can blue-enriched light keep us alert? PLoS One. 6(1):e16429.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins B. 1975. Windows and people: a literature survey: psychological reaction to environments with and without windows. Natl Bur Stand Technol. doi:10.1002/9781444392333
   Google Scholar
• Duffy JF, Czeisler CA. 2009. Effect of light on human circadian physiology. Sleep Med Clin. 4(2):165–177.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dutra de Vasconcellos G. 2017. Evaluation of annual sunlight exposure (ASE) as a proxy to glare: a field study in a NZEB and LEED certified office in San Francisco. UC Berkeley University. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3js1z0b8.
   Google Scholar
• Elzeyadi I. 2002. Designing for indoor comfort: a systemic model for assessing occupant comfort in sustainable office buildings. Solar 2002 - ASES National Solar Energy Conference. Reno, NV.
   Google Scholar
• Elzeyadi I. 2012. Workplace design: health and healing impacts of daylight in the workplace. World Heal Des. 60–67.
   Google Scholar
• Elzeyadi I, Lockyear B. 2010. Dynamic daylight–delight verses intensity: the relationship between daylighting quality, building orientation, and office layout inside a LEED platinum commercial building with Glazed Facades. Solar 2010 - American Solar Energy Society (ASES).  Phoenix, AZ.
   Google Scholar
• Figueiro MG, Rea MS. 2010. Lack of short-wavelength light during the school day delays dim light melatonin onset (DLMO) in middle school students. Neuroendocrinol Lett. 31(1).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerhall C, Laike T, Kuller M, Marcheschi E, Boydston C, Taylor R. 2015. Human physiological benefits of viewing nature: EEG responses to exact and statistical fractal patterns. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci. 19(1):1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerhall C, Laike T, Taylor R, Küller M, Küller R, Martin T. 2008. Investigations of human EEG response to viewing fractal patterns. Perception. 37(10):1488–1494.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris J. 2012. Fractal architecture: organic design philosophy in theory and practice. Albuquerque: UNM Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heschong L. 2002. Re-analysis report daylighting in schools, additional analysis. http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/shared/edusafety/training/pec/daylight/DL_Schools_Re-analysis.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hirning MB, Isoardi GL, Cowling I. 2014. Discomfort glare in open plan green buildings. Energy Build. 70:427–440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HMG. 2012. Daylight metrics pier daylighting plus research program. Gold River, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Hoechle D. 2007. Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross-sectional dependence. Stata J. 7(3):281–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IES. 2013. Approved method: IES spatial daylight autonomy (sDA) and annual sunlight exposure (ASE). Illuminating Engineering Society.
   Google Scholar
• Inanici M. 2006. Evaluation of high dynamic range photography as a luminance data acquisition system. Light Res Technol. 38(2):123–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iwata T, Tokura M, Shukuya M. 1992. Experimental study on discomfort Glare caused by windows part 2. J Archit Environ Eng. 61(439):17–25.
   Google Scholar
• Jakubiec A, Reinhart CF. 2012. The “adaptive zone” - A concept for assessing discomfort glare throughout daylit spaces. Light Res Technol. 44(2):149–170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakubiec A, Reinhart CF. 2013. Predicting visual comfort conditions in a large daylit space based on long-term occupant evaluations: a field study. Proceedings of BS2013, 13th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association. Chambéry. p. 3408–3415. [accessed 2014 Nov 1]. http://www.ibpsa.org/proceedings/BS2013/p_1034.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Joye Y, Van den Berg AE. 2011. Is love for green in our genes? A critical analysis of evolutionary assumptions in restorative environments research. Urban For Urban Green. 10(4):261–268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan S. 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. J Environ Psychol. 15(3):169–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent MG, Fotios S, Altomonte S. 2019. Discomfort glare evaluation: the influence of anchor bias in luminance adjustments. Light Res Technol. 51(1):131–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim IK. 1997. Subjective responses to daylight, sunlight, and view in college classrooms with windows. Texas A&M University.
   Google Scholar
• Knoop M, Stefani O, Bueno B, Matusiak B, Hobday R, Wirz-Justice A, Martiny K, Kantermann T, Aarts M, Zemmouri N, et al. 2019. Daylight: what makes the difference? Light Res Technol. (June 2018):147715351986975. doi:10.1177/1477153519869758.
   Google Scholar
• Konis K. 2011. Effective daylighting: evaluating daylighting performance in the San Francisco federal building from the perspective of building occupants. [accessed 2014 Dec 1]. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0vd3q8s2.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Konstantzos I, Chan Y-C, Seibold JC, Tzempelikos A, Proctor RW, Protzman JB. 2015. View clarity index: A new metric to evaluate clarity of view through window shades. Build Environ. 90:206–214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumaragurubaran V, Inanici M. 2013. Hdrscope: high dynamic range image processing toolkit for lighting simulations and analysis. In: Proceedings of BS 2013: 13th Conference of the International Building Performance Simulation Association. Chambéry. p. 3400–3407.
   Google Scholar
• Leather P, Pyrgas M, Beale D, Lawrence C. 1998. Windows in the workplace: sunlight, view, and occupational stress. Environ Behav. 30(6):739–762.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee E, Selkowitz S, Clear R, Inanici M, Inkarojrit V, Lai J. 2005. Daylighting the New York times headquarters building. http://windows.lbl.gov/comm_perf/pdf/daylighting-nyt-final-iii.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Lee KE, Williams KJH, Sargent LD, Williams NSG, Johnson KA. 2015. 40-second green roof views sustain attention: the role of micro-breaks in attention restoration. J Environ Psychol. 42:182–189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandelbrot BB. 1983. The fractal geometry of nature. Am J Phys. 51(3):286.
   Google Scholar
• Mardaljevic J, Heschong L, Lee E. 2009. Daylight metrics and energy savings. Light Res Technol. 41:261–283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merrow M, Roenneberg T. 2001. Circadian clocks. Cell. 106(2):141–143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nazzal AA. 1998. Evaluating and controlling discomfort glare of daylight origin in an office environment. Proceedings of the EuroSun’98, Second ISES-Europe Solar Cong; Portoroz. p. 3.15–1–3.15–7.
   Google Scholar
• Ne’Eman E. 1974. Visual aspects of sunlight in buildings. Light Res Technol. 6(3):159–164.
   Google Scholar
• Omidfar A, Niermann M, Groat LN. 2015. The use of environmental aesthetics in subjective evaluation of daylight quality in office buildings. Proceedings of IES Annual Conference. Indianapolis.
   Google Scholar
• Painter B, Mardaljevic J, Fan D. 2010. Monitoring daylight provision and glare perception in office environments. Proceedings of CIB World Congress 2010. Manchester. p. 148–160.
   Google Scholar
• Penacchio O, Wilkins AJ. 2015. Visual discomfort and the spatial distribution of Fourier energy. Vision Res. 108:1–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierson C, Wienold J, Jacobs A. 2017. Luminance maps from high dynamic range imaging : calibrations and adjustments for visual comfort assessment. In: Lux Europa 2017. Ljubljana. p. 147–151.
   Google Scholar
• Purcell T, Peron E, Berto R. 2001. Why do preferences differ between scene types? Environ Behav. 33(1):93–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raanaas RK, Patil G, Hartig T. 2011. Health benefits of a view of nature through the window: a quasi-experimental study of patients in a residential rehabilitation centre. Clin Rehabil. 26(1):21–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reinhart CF. 2015. Opinion: climate-based daylighting metrics in LEEDv4 – A fragile progress. Light Res Technol. 47:388.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shin JY, Yun GY, Kim JT. 2012. View types and luminance effects on discomfort glare assessment from windows. Energy Build. 46:139–145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smolders K, de Kort YAW, Cluitmans PJM. 2015. Higher light intensity induces modulations in brain activity even during regular daytime working hours. Light Res Technol. 48:433–448.
   Google Scholar
• Souman JL, Tinga AM, Te Pas SF, van Ee R, Vlaskamp BNS. 2018. Acute alerting effects of light: A systematic literature review. Behav Brain Res. 337:228–239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spehar B, Clifford CWG, Newell BR, Taylor R. 2003. Universal aesthetic of fractals. Comput Graph. 27(5):813–820.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spehar B, Taylor R. 2013. Fractals in art and nature: why do we like them? Proc SPIE - Int Soc Opt Eng. 8651(March 14, 2013):865118.
   Google Scholar
• Spehar B, Walker N, Taylor R. 2016. Taxonomy of individual variations in aesthetic responses to fractal patterns. Front Hum Neurosci. 10(July):1–18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Taylor R. 2006. Reduction of physiological stress using fractal art and architecture. Leonardo. 39(3):245–251.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor R, Spehar B. 2016. Fractal fluency: an intimate relationship between the brain and processing of fractal stimuli. In: The fractal geometry of the brain. Springer. p. 485–496.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor R, Spehar B, Hagerhall C, Van Donkelaar P 2011. Perceptual and physiological responses to Jackson Pollock’s fractals. Front Hum Neurosci. 5(60). doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00060
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Taylor R, Spehar B, Wise J, Clifford CWG, Newell BR, Hagerhall C, Purcell T, Martin TP. 2005. Perceptual and physiological responses to the visual complexity of fractal patterns. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci. 9(1):89–114.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tuaycharoen N, Tregenza PR. 2005. Discomfort glare from interesting images. Light Res Technol. 4(August 2004):329–341.
   Google Scholar
• Tuaycharoen N, Tregenza PR. 2007. View and discomfort glare from windows. Light Res Technol. 2:185–200.
   Google Scholar
• Ulrich RS. 1981. Natural versus urban scenes: some psychophysiological effects. Environ Behav. 13(5):523–556.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulrich RS. 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science (80-). 224(4647):420–421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Den Wymelenberg K, Inanici M. 2014. A critical investigation of common lighting design metrics for predicting human visual comfort in offices with daylight. Leukos. 10(January 2015):145–164.
   Google Scholar
• Van Den Wymelenberg K, Inanici M. 2016. Evaluating a new suite of luminance-based design metrics for predicting human visual comfort in offices with daylight. LEUKOS - J Illum Eng Soc North Am. 12(3):113–138.
   Google Scholar
• Van den Wymelenberg K, Inanici M, Johnson P. 2010. The effect of luminance distribution patterns on occupant preference in a daylit office environment. Leukos. 7(2):103–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viola AU, James LM, Schlangen LJM, Dijk DJ. 2008. Blue-enriched white light in the workplace improves self-reported alertness, performance and sleep quality. Scand J Work Environ Heal. 34(4):297–306.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagemans J, Elder JH, Kubovy M, Palmer SE, Peterson MA, Singh M, von der Heydt R. 2012. A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure-ground organization. Psychol Bull. doi:10.1037/a0029333
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang N, Boubekri M. 2010. Design recommendations based on cognitive, mood and preference assessments in a sunlit workspace. Light Res Technol. 43(1):55–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wienold J. 2018. Evalglare. In: 15th International Radiance Workshop. Padua. https://www.radiance-online.org/community/workshops/2016-padua/presentations/211-Wienold-Evalgaare2.0.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Wienold J, Christoffersen J. 2006. Evaluation methods and development of a new glare prediction model for daylight environments with the use of CCD cameras. Energy Build. 38(7):743–757.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkins AJ. 2016. A physiological basis for visual discomfort: application in lighting design. Light Res Technol. 48(1):44–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winterbottom M, Wilkins A. 2009. Lighting and discomfort in the classroom. J Environ Psychol. 29(1):63–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar