Measuring Discomfort from Glare: Recommendations for Good Practice

References

• Adrian W, Schreuder DA. 1970. A simple method for the appraisal of glare in street lighting. Lighting Res & Technol. 2(2):61–73.
   Google Scholar
• ASHRAE. 2009. ASHRAE handbook: fundamentals. Atlanta (GA): American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Bargary G, Furlan M, Raynham PJ, Barbur JL, Smith AT. 2015. Cortical hyperexcitability and sensitivity to discomfort glare. Neuropsychologia. 69:194–200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bargary G, Jia Y, Barbur JL. 2014. Mechanisms for discomfort glare in central vision. Invest Ophth Vis Sci. 56(1):464–471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berman SM, Bullimore MA, Jacobs RJ, Bailey IL, Gandhi N. 1994. An objective measure of discomfort glare. J Illum Eng Soc. 23(2):40–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop GF. 1987. Experiments with the middle response alternative in survey questions. Public Opin Q. 51:220–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bullough J, Brons JA, Qi R, Rea MS. 2008. Predicting discomfort glare from outdoor lighting installations. Lighting Res Technol. 40:225–242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cambridge Dictionary. 2019a. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; [accessed 2019 Oct 16]. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/comfort.
   Google Scholar
• Cambridge Dictionary. 2019b. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; [accessed 2019 Oct 16]. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/discomfort.
   Google Scholar
• (CIE) Commission Internationale de l’Éclairage. CIE 212:2014. Guidance towards best practice in psychophysical procedures used when measuring relative spatial brightness. Commission Internationale De L’Éclairage, Vienna (Austria).
   Google Scholar
• (CIE) Commission Internationale de l’Éclairage. 2019a. CIE e-ILV term 17-492 glare. Vienna (Austria): CIE; [accessed 2019 Oct 16]. http://eilv.cie.co.at/term/492.
   Google Scholar
• (CIE) Commission Internationale de l’Éclairage. 2019b. CIE e-ILV term 17-333 discomfort glare. Vienna (Austria): CIE; [accessed 2019 Oct 16]. http://eilv.cie.co.at/term/333.
   Google Scholar
• Chapman GB, Johnson EJ. 1999. Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organ Behav and Hum Decis Processes. 79(2):115–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins WM. 1962. The determination of the minimum identifiable glare sensation interval using a pair-comparison method. Trans Illum Eng Soc. 27(1):27–34.
   Google Scholar
• De Boer JB, Schreuder DA. 1967. Glare as a criterion for quality in street lighting. Trans Illum Eng Soc. 32(2):117–135.
   Google Scholar
• Durlak JA. 2009. How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. J Pediatr Psychol. 34(9):917–928.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. 1994. An introduction to the bootstrap. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fekete J, Sik-Lanyi C, Schanda J. 2010. Spectral discomfort glare sensitivity investigations. Ophthal Physl Opt. 30(2):182–187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson CJ. 2009. An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Prof Psychol-Res Pr. 40(5):532–538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field A. 2005. Discovering statistics using SPSS. London (UK): Sage publications.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer D. 1972. The European glare limiting method. Lighting Res Technol. 4(2):97–100.
   Google Scholar
• Flannagan MJ, Weintraub DJ, Sivak M. 1990. Context effects on discomfort glare: task and stimulus factors (UMTRI-90-35). Ann Arbor (USA): The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Fotios S. 2016. Comment on of empirical evidence for the design of public lighting. Safety Sci. 86:88–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fotios S. 2017. A revised kruithof graph based on empirical data. Leukos. 13(1):3–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fotios S. 2018. Correspondence: new methods for the evaluation of discomfort glare. Lighting Res Technol. 50(3):489–491.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fotios S. 2019. Using category rating to evaluate the lit environment: is a meaningful opinion captured? Leukos. 15(2–3):127–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fotios S, Atli D. 2012. Comparing judgements of visual clarity and spatial brightness through an analysis of studies using the category rating procedure. Leukos. 8(4):261–281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fotios S, Atli D, Cheal C, Houser K, Logadóttir A. 2015. Lamp spectrum and spatial brightness at photopic levels: A basis for developing a metric. Lighting Res Technol. 47(1):80–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fotios S, Castleton H. 2016. Specifying enough light to feel reassured on pedestrian footpaths. Leukos. 12(4):235–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fotios SA, Cheal C. 2008. The effect of a stimulus frequency bias in side-by-side brightness ranking tests. Lighting Res Technol. 40(1):43–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fotios SA, Cheal C. 2010. Stimulus range bias explains the outcome of preferred-illuminance adjustments. Lighting Res Technol. 42(4):433–447.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fotios SA, Houser KW. 2009. Research methods to avoid bias in categorical ratings of brightness. Leukos. 5(3):167–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foulsham T, Gray A, Nasiopoulos E, Kingstone A. 2013. Leftward biases in picture scanning and line bisection: A gaze-contingent window study. Vision Res. 78:14–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman HH, Herksovitz PJ, Pollack S. 1994. Biasing effects of scale-checking styles on responses to a likert scale. Proc Am Statl Assoc Annu Conf. 792–795.
   Google Scholar
• Fry GA, King VM. 1975. The pupillary response and discomfort glare. J Illum Eng Soc. 4(4):307–324.
   Google Scholar
• Funke F, Reips U-D. 2012. Why semantic differentials in web-based research should be made from visual analogue scales and not from 5-point scales. Field Method. 24(3):310–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gellatly & Weintraub. 1990. User reconfigurations of the De Boer rating scale for discomfort glare. The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Gescheider GA. 1997. Psychophysics: the fundamentals. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Golafshani N. 2003. Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. Qual Rep. 8(4):597–606.
   Google Scholar
• Harpe SE. 2015. How to analyse likert and other rating scale data. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 7(7):836–850.
   Google Scholar
• Hopkinson RG. 1940. Discomfort glare in lighted streets. Trans Illum Eng Soc. 5:1–32.
   Google Scholar
• Hopkinson RG. 1950. The multiple criterion technique of subjective appraisal. Q J Exp Psychol. 2(3):124–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopkinson RG. 1956. Glare discomfort and pupil diameter. J Opt Soc Am. 46:649–656.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houser KW, Tiller DK. 2003. Measuring the subjective response to interior lighting: paired comparisons and semantic differential scaling. Lighting Res Technol. 35(3):183–195.
   Google Scholar
• Howarth PA, Heron G, Greenhouse DS, Bailey IL, Berman SM. 1993. Discomfort from glare: the role of pupillary hippus. Lighting Res Technol. 25(1):37–42.
   Google Scholar
• Hsu T-C, Feldt LS. 1969. The effect of limitations on the number of criterion score values on the significance level of the F-test. Am Educ Res J. 6(4):515–527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang WJ, Yang Y, Luo MR. 2018. Discomfort glare caused by white LEDs having different spectral power distributions. Lighting Res Technol. 50(6):921–936.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iwata T, Kimura K-I, Shukuya M, Takano K. 1990-1991. Discomfort caused by wide-source glare. Energ Build. 15(3–4):391–398.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakubiac JA, Reinhart CF. 2012. The ‘adaptive zone’ – A concept for assessing discomfort glare throughout daylit spaces. Lighting Res Technol. 44:149–170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent M, Fotios S. 2019. The effect of a pre-trial range demonstration on subjective evaluations using category rating of discomfort due to glare. Leukos. Online first, 23/ 07/2019. 1–16. doi:10.1080/15502724.2019.1631177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent M, Fotios S, Altomonte S. 2019b. Discomfort glare evaluation: the influence of anchor bias in luminance adjustments. Light Res Technol. 51(1):131–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent M, Fotios S, Altomonte S. 2019c. An experimental study on the effect of visual tasks on discomfort due to peripheral glare. Leukos. 15(1):17–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent MG, Altomonte S, Tregenza PR, Wilson R. 2015. Discomfort glare and time of day. Light Res Technol. 47:641–657.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent MG, Fotios S, Altomonte S. 2018. Order effects when using Hopkinson’s multiple criterion scale of discomfort due to glare. Building Environ. 136:54–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent MG, Fotios S, Cheung T. 2019a. Stimulus range bias leads to different settings when using luminance adjustment to evaluate discomfort due to glare. Building Environ. 153:281–287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keusch F, Yan T. 2018. Is satisficing responsible for response order effects in rating scale questions? Surv Res Methods. 12(3):259–270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim W, Kim JT. 2011. A position index formula for evaluation of glare source in the visual field. Indoor Built Environ. 20(1):47–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimura-Minoda T, Ayama M. 2011. Evaluation of discomfort glare from color LEDs and its correlation with individual variations in brightness sensitivity. Color Res Appl. 36(4):286–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee SY, Brand JL. 2005. Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of the work environment and work outcomes. J Environ Psychol. 25:323–333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin Y, Fotios S, Wei M, Liu Y, Guo W, Sun Y. 2015. Eye movement and pupil size constriction under discomfort glare. Invest Ophth Vis Sci. 56(3):1649–1656.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logadóttir, Á., Christoffersen, J., Fotios, S. A. 2011. Investigating the use of an adjustment task to set preferred illuminance in a workplace environment. Lighting Res Technol. 43(4):403–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logadóttir, Á., Fotios, S. A., Christoffersen, J., Hansen, S. S., Corell, D. D., Dam‐Hansen, C. 2013. Investigating the use of an adjustment task to set preferred colour of ambient illumination. Color Res Appl. 38(1):46–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luckiesh M, Guth SK. 1949. Brightnesses in visual field at borderline between comfort and discomfort (BCD). Illum Eng. 44:650–670.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Luckiesh M, Holladay LL. 1925. Glare and visibility. Trans Illum Eng Soc. March, 221–247.
   Google Scholar
• Lulla AB, Bennett CA. 1981. Discomfort glare: range effects. J Illum Eng Soc. 10(2):74–80.
   Google Scholar
• Markus TA. 1974. The why and the how of research in real buildings. J of Architl Res. 3(2):19–23.
   Google Scholar
• Matejka J, Glueck M, Grossman T, Fitzmaurice G 2016. The effect of visual appearance on the performance of continuous sliders and visual analogue scales. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. San Jose, California, 7-12 May 2016. p. 5421–5432.
   Google Scholar
• Matell MS, Jacoby J. 1971. Is there an optimal number of alternatives for likert scale items? Study I: reliability and validity. Educ Psychol Meas. 31:657–674.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matell MS, Jacoby J. 1972. Is there an optimal number of alternatives for likert-scale items? Effects of testing time and scale properties. J Appl Psychol. 56(6):506–509.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller GA. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychol Rev. 63(2):81–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortimer RG, Olson PL 1974. Evaluation of meeting beams by field tests and computer simulation. Report No. UM-HSRI-HF-74-27. Ann Arbor (Michigan, USA): Highway Safety Research Institute, The University of Michigan.
   Google Scholar
• Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers CD, Percie Du Sert N, Simonsohn U, Wagenmakers E-J, Ware JJ, Ionnidis JPA. 2017. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav. 1:1–9. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray I, Plainis S, Carden D. 2002. The ocular stress monitor: a new device for measuring discomfort glare. Light Res Technol. 34:231–239.
   Google Scholar
• Mussweiler T, Strack F. 2001. The semantics of anchoring. Organ Behav Hum Dec. 86(2):234–255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ngai P, Boyce P. 2000. The effect of overhead glare on visual discomfort. J Illum Eng Soc. 29(2):29–38.
   Google Scholar
• Nuzzo R. 2014. Statistical errors. Nat. 505:150–152.
   Google Scholar
• O’Neil SM 2015. Quantifying adaptive behavioral responses to discomfort glare – a comparative analysis of daylit offices. [Thesis for Master of Science]. USA: University of Oregon.
   Google Scholar
• Osterhaus WKE. 2005. Discomfort glare assessment and prevention for daylight applications in office environments. Sol Energy. 79:140–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osterhaus WKE, Bailey IL 1992. Large area glare sources and their effect on discomfort and performance at computer workstations. Proceedings of the 1992 IEEE Industry Applications Annual Meeting, 4-9 October 1992. Houston, TX; New York: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Oxford Dictionaries. 2019. Lexico.com. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; [accessed 2019 Oct 16]. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/comfort.
   Google Scholar
• Parker S, Schneider B. 1994. The stimulus range effect: evidence for top-down control of sensory intensity in audition. Percept Psychophys. 56:1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petherbridge P, Hopkinson RG. 1950. Discomfort glare and the lighting of buildings. Trans Illum Eng Soc. 15:39–79.
   Google Scholar
• Pierson C, Wienold J, Bodart M. 2018. Review of factors influencing discomfort glare perception from daylight. Leukos. 14(3):111–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulton EC. 1977. Quantitative subjective assessments are almost always biased, sometimes completely misleading. Brit J Psychol. 68:409–425.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulton EC. 1989. Bias in quantifying judgements. Hove (East Sussex, UK): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Presser S, Schuman H. 1980. The measurement of a middle position in attitude surveys. Public Opin Q. 44:70–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pulpitlova J, Detkova P 1993. Impact of the cultural and social background on the visual perception in living and working perception. Proceedings of the International Symposium: Design of Amenity, 5-8 October, Fukuoka, Japan. p. 93–95.
   Google Scholar
• Ramasoot T, Fotios SA. 2012. Lighting and display screens: models for predicting luminance limits and disturbance. Lighting Res Technol. 44(2):197–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reilly R, Lee T. 2010. Electrograms (ECG, EEG, EMG, EOG). Technol Health Care. 18:443–458.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriquez RG, Pattini A. 2014. Tolerance of discomfort glare from a large area source for work on a visual display. Lighting Res Technol. 46:157–170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohles FH. 2007. Temperature and temperament. A Psychologist Looks at Comfort. ASHRAE J: February, 14–22.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty TL, Ozdemir MS. 2003. Why the magic number seven plus or minus two. Math Comput Model. 38(3):233–244.
   Google Scholar
• Sarey Khanie M, Stoll J, Einhauser W, Wienold J, Andersen M. 2017. Gaze and discomfort glare, part 1: development of a gaze-driven photometry. Light Res Technol. 49(7):845–865.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt-Clausen HJ, Bindels JTH. 1974. Assessment of discomfort glare in motor vehicle lighting. Lighting Res Technol. 6(2):79–88.
   Google Scholar
• Senders VL, Sowards A. 1952. Analysis of response sequences in the setting of a psychophysical experiment. Amer J Psychol. 65(3):358–374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. 2011. False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci. 22(11):1359–1366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivak M, Flannagan MJ, Ensing M, Simmons CJ. 1989. Discomfort glare is task dependent (UMTRI-89-27). Ann Arbor (USA): The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Staddon JER, King M, Lockhead GR. 1980. On sequential effects in absolute judgement experiments. J Exp Psychol. 6(2):290–301.
   Google Scholar
• Stone PT, Harker SDP. 1973. Individual and group differences in discomfort glare responses. Lighting Res Technol. 5(1):41–49.
   Google Scholar
• Stringham JM, Garcia PV, Smith PA, McLin LN, Foutch BK. 2011. Macular pigment and visual performance in glare: benefits for photostress recovery, disability glare, and visual discomfort. Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci. 52:7406–7415.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiller DK, Rea MS. 1992. Semantic differential scaling: prospects in lighting research. Light Res Technol. 24(1):43–51.
   Google Scholar
• Tokura M, Iwata T, Shukuya M. 1996. Experimental study on discomfort glare caused by windows part 3. J Archit Plann Environ Eng. 489:17–25.
   Google Scholar
• Tourangeau R, Rips RJ, Rasinski K. 2000. The psychology of survey response. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tuaycharoen N, 2006. The reduction of discomfort glare from window by interesting views. [PhD Thesis]: University of Sheffield.
   Google Scholar
• Tuaycharoen N, Tregenza PR. 2005. Discomfort glare from interesting images. Lighting Res Technol. 37:329–341.
   Google Scholar
• Tuaycharoen N, Tregenza PR. 2007. View and discomfort glare from windows. Lighting Res Technol. 39:185–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyukhova Y, Waters CE. 2018. Discomfort glare from small, high-luminance light sources when viewed against a dark surround. Leukos. 14(4):215–230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyukhova Y, Waters CE. 2019. Subjective and pupil responses to discomfort glare from small, high-luminance light sources. Light Res Technol. 51:592–611.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uttley J. 2019. Power analysis, sample size, and assessment of statistical assumptions – improving the evidential value of lighting research. Leukos. 15(2–3):143–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uttley J, Fotios S, Cheal C. 2013. Satisfaction and illuminances set with user-controlled lighting. Archit Sci Rev. 56(4):306–314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veitch JA, Fotios SA, Houser KW. 2019. Judging the scientific quality of applied lighting research. Leukos. 15(2–3):97–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villa C, Bremond R, Saint-Jacques E. 2017. Assessment of pedestrian discomfort glare from urban LED lighting. Light Res Technol. 49(2):147–172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang J, Wang Z, de Dear R, Luo M, Ghahramani A. 2018. The uncertainty of subjective thermal comfort measurement. Energ Build. 181:38–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waters CE, Mistrick RG, Bernecker CA. 1995. Discomfort glare from sources of nonuniform luminance. J Illum Eng Soc. 24(2):73–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wicherts JM, Veldkamp CLS, Augusteijn HEM, Bakker M, van Aert RCM, van Assen MALM. 2016. Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies: A checklist to avoid p-hacking. Front Psychol. ( article 1832) 7:1–12. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01832.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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. Energ Build. 38(7):743–757.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamín Garretón JA, Rodriguez RG, Pattini AE. 2015. Degree of eye opening: A new discomfort glare indicator. Build Environ. 88:142–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar