Regional Differences in the Perception of Daylit Scenes across Europe Using Virtual Reality. Part II: Effects of Façade and Daylight Pattern Geometry

References

• Abboushi B, Elzeyadi I 2018a. Do visually interesting sunlight patterns impact occupants’ perceived glare? IES Research Symposium 2018. Atlanta, GA, USA. p. 11.
   Google Scholar
• Abboushi B, Elzeyadi I 2018b. The relationship between sunlight pattern geometry and visual comfort in daylit offices. Proceedings of the ARCC Conference. Philadelphia: ARCC. p. 9.
   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
• Abboushi B, Elzeyadi I, Wymelenberg KVD, Taylor R, Sereno M, Jacobsen G. 2020. Assessing the visual comfort, visual interest of sunlight patterns, and view quality under different window conditions in an open-plan office. LEUKOS. 17(4): 321–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abd-Alhamid F, Kent M, Bennett C, Calautit J, Wu Y. 2019. Developing an innovative method for visual perception evaluation in a physical-based virtual environment. Build Environ. 162:106278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akaliyski P. 2017. Sources of Societal Value Similarities across Europe: Evidence from Dyadic Models. Comp Sociol. 16(4):447–470. doi:https://doi.org/10.1163/15691330-12341432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnau J, Bendayan R, Blanca MJ, Bono R. 2013. The effect of skewness and kurtosis on the robustness of linear mixed models. Behav Res Methods. 45(3):873–879.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. 67(1):1–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biner PM, Butler DL, Fischer AR, Westergren AJ. 1989. An arousal optimization model of lighting level preferences: an interaction of social situation and task demands. Environ Behav. 21(1):3–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borisuit A, Linhart F, Scartezzini J-L, Münch MM. 2015. Effects of realistic office daylighting and electric lighting conditions on visual comfort, alertness and mood. Light Res Technol. 47(2):192–209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boubekri M, Hull RB, Boyer LL. 1991. Impact of window size and sunlight penetration on office workers‘ mood and satisfaction. Environ Behav. 23(4):474–493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyce PR. 2003. Human factors in lighting. London (UK): Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Boyce PR. 2014. Editorial: light distribution – a missing variable. Light Res Technol. 46(6):617.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brückner R. 1967. Longitudinal research on the eye (Basal studies, 1955–1965). Gerontol Clin (Basel). 9(2):87–95.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Butler DL, Biner PM. 1987. Preferred lighting levels variability among settings, behaviors, and individuals. Environ Behav. 19(6):695–721.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler DL, Biner PM. 1989. Effects of setting on window preferences and factors associated with those preferences. Environ Behav. 21(1):17–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cauwerts C 2013. Influence of presentation modes on visual perceptions of daylit spaces [Doctoral issertation]. Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium): Université catholique de Louvain.
   Google Scholar
• CEN. 2007. 11664-4:2008: colorimetry – part 4: CIE 1976 L*a*b* Colour space Tech. Rep. Brussels (Belgium). doi:https://doi.org/10.109/4PDIS-91-4-0467B.
   Google Scholar
• CEN. 2018. Daylight in buildings. In: European standard NSEN 17037:2018. Brussels (Belgium): European Committee for Standardization.
   Google Scholar
• Chamilothori K 2019. Perceptual effects of daylight patterns in architecture [Dissertation]. Lausanne (Switzerland): Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne. https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/270116
   Google Scholar
• Chamilothori K, Chinazzo G, Rodrigues J, Dan-Glauser ES, Wienold J, Andersen M. 2019a. 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. Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Ambiances. Volos, Greece.
   Google Scholar
• Chamilothori K, Wienold J, Andersen M. 2018. Façade design and our experience of space: the joint impact of architecture and daylight on human perception and physiological responses. Proceedings of the Light Symposium 2018 Conference. Stockholm, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Chamilothori K, Wienold J, Andersen M. 2019b. Adequacy of immersive virtual reality for the perception of daylit spaces: comparison of real and virtual environments. LEUKOS. 15(2–3):203–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinazzo G, Chamilothori K, Wienold J, Andersen M. 2021. Temperature–color interaction: subjective indoor environmental perception and physiological responses in virtual reality. Hum Factors . 63(3):474–502.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN). 2011. Light and lighting – lighting of work places – part 1: indoor work places (EN 12464-1-2011). Paris (France): CEN.
   Google Scholar
• Corrodi M, Spechtenhauser K. 2008. Illuminating: natural light in residential architecture. Basel (Boston, Berlin): Birkhäuser.
   Google Scholar
• European Committee for Standardization CEN. 2019. EN17037:2019 daylight in buildings.
   Google Scholar
• Ferguson CJ. 2009. An effect size primer: a guide for clinicians and researchers. Prof Psychol Res Pract. 40(5):532–538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flynn JE, Spencer TJ, Martyniuk O, Hendrick C. 1973. Interim study of procedures for investigating the effect of light on impression and behavior. J Illum Eng Soc. 3(1):87–94.
   Google Scholar
• Fox J, Weisberg S. 2011. An R companion to applied regression. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Franz G, Von der Heyde M, Bülthoff HH. 2005. An empirical approach to the experience of architectural space in virtual reality—exploring relations between features and affective appraisals of rectangular indoor spaces. Autom Constr. 14(2):165–172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galasiu AD, Veitch JA. 2006. Occupant preferences and satisfaction with the luminous environment and control systems in daylit offices: a literature review. Energy Build. 38(7):728–742.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haans A. 2014. The natural preference in people’s appraisal of light. J Environ Psychol. 39:51–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkes RJ, Loe DL, Rowlands E. 1979. A note towards the understanding of lighting quality. J Illum Eng Soc. 8(2):111–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heerwagen JH, Heerwagen DR. 1986. Lighting and psychological comfort. Light Des Appl. 16(4):47–51.
   Google Scholar
• Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A. 2010. The weirdest people in the world? Behav Brain Sci. 33(2–3):61–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higuera-Trujillo JL, López-Tarruella Maldonado J, Llinares Millán C. 2017. Psychological and physiological human responses to simulated and real environments: a comparison between photographs, 360° panoramas, and virtual reality. Appl Ergon. 65:398–409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huibers MJH, de Graaf LE, Peeters FPML, Arntz A. 2010. Does the weather make us sad? Meteorological determinants of mood and depression in the general population. Psychiatry Res. 180(2–3):143–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huston RL. 2013. Fundamentals of Biomechanics. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• IESNA. 2012. IES LM-83-12 IES Spatial Daylight Autonomy (sDA) and Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE). IESNA Lighting Measurement Report No.: IES LM-83-12. New York (NY, USA): Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA).
   Google Scholar
• Inanici M, Wymelenberg KVD 2009. A study of luminance distribution patterns and occupant preference in daylit offices. Proceedings of PLEA 2009. Quebec City, Canada. http://www.idlboise.com/pdf/papers/Luminance_Preference_03062009_WEB.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Jakubiec JA, Reinhart CF 2011. DIVA 2.0: integrating daylight and thermal simulations using Rhinoceros 3D, Daysim and EnergyPlus. Proc Build Simul 2011. Syndey (Australia). [accessed 2013 May 31]. http://www.ibpsa.org/proceedings/BS2011/P_1701.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kim H-Y. 2013. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restor Dent Endod. 38(1):52–54.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kline RB. 2015. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th edn. New York (NY): Guilford Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Kuijsters A, Redi J, de Ruyter B, Seuntiëns P, Heynderickx I 2012. Effects of ageing on atmosphere perception. In: Proceedings of Experiencing Light 2012. Eindhoven, The Netherlands. p. 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Küller R. 1991. Environmental assessment from a neuropsychological perspective. In Gärling T, Evans G, editors, Environment, cognition and action: An integrated approach. New York (NY): Oxford University Press. p. 111–147.
   Google Scholar
• Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff P, Christensen R. 2017. lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Softw. 82(13):1–26.
   Web of Science ®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 JS, Kim BS. 2007. Development of the nomo-graph for evaluation on discomfort glare of windows. Sol Energy. 81(6):799–808.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenth R. 2019. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.7.0.
   Google Scholar
• Liu XY, Luo MR, Li H. 2015. A study of atmosphere perceptions in a living room. Light Res Technol. 47(5):581–594.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loe DL, Mansfield KP, Rowlands E. 1994. Appearance of lit environment and its relevance in lighting design: experimental study. Light Res Technol. 26(3):3.
   Google Scholar
• Lysgaand S. 1955. Adjustment in a foreign society: norwegian Fulbright grantees visiting the United States. Int Soc Sci Bull. 7:45–51.
   Google Scholar
• Mahy M, Eycken LV, Oosterlinck A. 1994. Evaluation of uniform color spaces developed after the adoption of CIELAB and CIELUV. Color Res Appl. 19(2):105–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markus TA. 1967. The significance of sunshine and view for office workers. Proceedings of the CIE Intersessional Conference. Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Matusiak BS. 2006. The impact of window form on the size impression of the room—full-scale studies. Archit Sci Rev. 49(1):43–51.
   Google Scholar
• McCulloch CE, Searle SR. 2001. Generalized, Linear, and Mixed Models. New York (NY): Wiley-Interscience
   Google Scholar
• Moscoso C, Chamilothori K, Wienold J, Andersen M, Matusiak B. 2021a. Regional differences in the perception of daylit scenes across europe using virtual reality. Part I: effects of window size. LEUKOS 1–22. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15502724.2020.1854779.
   Google Scholar
• Moscoso C, Chamilothori K, Wienold J, Andersen M, Matusiak B. 2021b. Window size effects on subjective impressions of daylit spaces: indoor studies at high latitudes using virtual reality. LEUKOS. 17(3):242–264.
   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 Light. 2(1):159–165.
   Google Scholar
• Nabil A, Mardaljevic J. 2005. Useful daylight illuminance: a new paradigm for assessing daylight in buildings. Light Res Technol. 37(1):41–57.
   Google Scholar
• Nakagawa S, Johnson PCD, Schielzeth H. 2017. The coefficient of determination R2 and intra-class correlation coefficient from generalized linear mixed-effects models revisited and expanded. J R Soc Interface. 14(134):134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okamura A, Odaka N, Suzuki H, Kirkegaard PH, Osterhaus W 2016. Impression evaluation of paper folding lamp shade by japanese students and comparison with results by danish students. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Geometry and Graphics. Beijing (China). p. 7.
   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 (IN).
   Google Scholar
• Omidfar Sawyer A, Chamilothori K 2019. Influence of subjective impressions of a space on brightness satisfaction: an experimental study in virtual reality. Proceedings of the Symposium on Simulation for Architecture and Urban Design 2019. Atlanta, GA, USA. p. 57-64.
   Google Scholar
• Osterhaus W 2009. Design guidelines for glare-free daylit work environments. In: Proceedings of Lux Europa 2009. Istanbul, Turkey. p. 8.
   Google Scholar
• Osterhaus WKE 1993. Office lighting: a review of 80 years of standards and recommendations. Conference Record of the 1993 IEEE Industry Applications Conference Twenty-Eighth IAS Annual Meeting. Vol. 3. Toronto, ON, Canada: IEEE. p. 2365–2374. [accessed 2019 May 22]. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/299211/
   Google Scholar
• Osterhaus WKE. 2005. Discomfort glare assessment and prevention for daylight applications in office environments. Sol Energy. 79(2):140–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osterhaus WKE, Bailey IL 1992. Large area glare sources and their effect on discomfort and visual performance at computer workstations. Proceedings of the 1992 IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting. Houston, TX, USA. p. 1825–1829. //A1992BY79K00264.
   Google Scholar
• Ozdemir A. 2010. The effect of window views’ openness and naturalness on the perception of rooms’ spaciousness and brightness: a visual preference study. Sci Res Essays. 5(16):13.
   Google Scholar
• Park N-K, Farr CA. 2007. The effects of lighting on consumers’ emotions and behavioral intentions in a retail environment: a cross-cultural comparison. J Inter Des. 33(1):17–32.
   Google Scholar
• Parpairi K, Baker NV, Steemers KA, Compagnon R. 2002. The luminance differences index: a new indicator of user preferences in daylit spaces. Light Res Technol. 34(1):53–66.
   Google Scholar
• Pierson C, Piderit B, Iwata T, Bodart M, Wienold J. 2021. Is there a difference in how people from different socio-environmental contexts perceive discomfort due to glare from daylight? Light Res Technol. 1477153520983530. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153520983530
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2018. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
   Google Scholar
• Reinhard E, Stark M, Shirley P, Ferwerda J 2002. Photographic tone reproduction for digital images. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques. New York, NY, USA: ACM. (SIGGRAPH ’02). p. 267–276.
   Google Scholar
• Reinhart CF, Mardaljevic J, Rogers Z. 2006. Dynamic daylight performance metrics for sustainable building design. LEUKOS. 3(1):7–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roche L, Dewey E, Littlefair P. 2000. Occupant reactions to daylight in offices. Int J Light Res Technol. 32(3):119–126.
   Google Scholar
• Rockcastle S, Danell M, Calabrese E, Sollom-Brotherton G, Mahic A, Van Den Wymelenberg K, Davis R. 2021. Comparing perceptions of a dimmable LED lighting system between a real space and a virtual reality display. Light Res Technol. 1477153521990039. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153521990039
   Google Scholar
• Rockcastle SF, Amundadottir M, Andersen M. 2017a. Contrast measures for predicting perceptual effects of daylight in architectural renderings. Light Res Technol. 49(7):882–903.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rockcastle SF, Andersen M. 2014. Measuring the dynamics of contrast & daylight variability in architecture: a proof-of-concept methodology. Build Environ. 81:320–333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rockcastle SF, Chamilothori K, Andersen M 2017b. Using virtual reality to measure daylight-driven interest in rendered architectural scenes. Proceedings of Building Simulation 2017. San Francisco, CA, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Schweitzer S, Schinagl C, Djuras G, Frühwirth M, Hoschopf H, Wagner F, Schulz B, Nemitz W, Grote V, Reidl S, Pritz, P, Moser, M, Wenzl, FP . 2016. Investigation of gender- and age-related preferences of men and women regarding lighting conditions for activation and relaxation. Proc. SPIE 9954, Fifteenth International Conference on Solid State Lighting and LED-based Illumination Systems. San Diego (CA). p. 99540L. doi:https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2237897.
   Google Scholar
• Šidák Z. 1967. Rectangular confidence regions for the means of multivariate normal distributions. J Am Stat Assoc. 62(318):626–633.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stamps AE. 2010. Effects of permeability on perceived enclosure and spaciousness. Environ Behav. 42(6):864–886.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stock MJ. 2017. view360stereo.cal: Definitions for full 360 over-under stereo equirectangular projection. Radiance script version 1.3.
   Google Scholar
• Stokkermans M, Vogels I, de Kort Y, Heynderickx I. 2017. Relation between the perceived atmosphere of a lit environment and perceptual attributes of light. Light Res Technol. 1477153517722384. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153517722384
   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
• 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
• Veitch JA, Hine DW, Gifford R. 1993. End users’ knowledge, beliefs, and preferences for lighting. J Inter Des. 19(2):15–26.
   Google Scholar
• Veitch JA, Newsham GR. 2000. Preferred luminous conditions in open-plan offices: research and practice recommendations. Light Res Technol. 32(4):199–212.
   Google Scholar
• Vogels I. 2008. Atmosphere metrics - development of a tool to quantify experienced atmosphere. In: Westerink JHDM, Ouwerkerk M, Overbeek TJM, Pasveer WF, de Ruyter B, editors. Probing experience: from assessment of user emotions and behaviour to development of products. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. p. 25–41.
   Google Scholar
• Wang N, Boubekri M. 2010. Investigation of declared seating preference and measured cognitive performance in a sunlit room. J Environ Psychol. 30(2):226–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward Larson G 1994. The RADIANCE lighting simulation and rendering system. In: Proceedings of the 21st annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques. New York, NY, USA: ACM. (SIGGRAPH ’94). p. 459–472. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/192161.192286.
   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
• Wu H, Leung S-O. 2017. Can likert scales be treated as interval scales?—a simulation study. J Soc Serv Res. 43(4):527–532.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoshizawa N, Aya K, Kato M, Yamaguchi H, Hara N, Miki Y, Dumortier D, Jost S, Iborra Bernard M 2015. A comparison study on spatial brightness evaluation between different cultural groups. Proceedings CIE Session 2015. Vol. 1. Manchester (UK).
   Google Scholar
• Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS. 2010. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol. 1(1):3–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar