Review of previous studies suggests that mean preferred illuminances determined using an adjustment task tend to lie in the middle of the range of illuminances available, a stimulus range bias. This hypothesis was validated through the results of an experimental study. It is therefore suggested that the adjustment task is not an appropriate method for determining optimum illuminances.
References
1.
Society of Light & Lighting (SLL).Code for Lighting. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann Ltd, 2002.
2.
Poulton ECBias in Quantifying Judgments. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd, 1989.
3.
Jou J., Leka GE, Rogers DM, Matus YEContraction bias in memorial quantifying judgment: Does it come from a stable compressed memory representation or a dynamic adaptation process?The American Journal of Psychology2004 ; 117: 543-564.
4.
Juslén HT, Wouters Mchm, Tenner ADPreferred task-lighting levels in an industrial work area without daylight. Lighting Research and Technology2005; 37: 219-233.
5.
Begemann SHA , van den Beld GJ, Tenner ADDaylight, artificial light and people, part 2: Proceedings of the 23rd Session of the CIE . New Delhi, 1995: 148-151.
6.
Moore T., Carter DJ, Slater A.Long-term patterns of use of occupant controlled office lighting. Lighting Research and Technology2003; 35: 43-59.
7.
Boyce PR, Eklund NH, Simpson SNIndividual lighting control: Task performance, mood and illuminance . Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society2000; 29: 131-142.
8.
Scholz A., Farnum N., Wilkes AR, Hampson MA, Hall JEMinimum and optimum light output of Macintosh size 3 laryngoscopy blades: a manikin study. Anaesthesia2007; 62: 163-168.
9.
Veitch JA, Newsham GRPreferred luminous conditions in open-plan offices: Research and practice recommendations. Lighting Research and Technology2000; 32: 199-212.
10.
Boyce PR, Veitch JA, Newsham GR, Jones CC, Heerwagen J., Myer M., Hunter CMOccupant use of switching and dimming controls in offices. Lighting Research and Technology2006; 38: 358-378.
11.
Fotios SA, Cheal C.Obstacle detection: A pilot study investigating the effects of lamp type, illuminance and age. Lighting Research and Technology2009; 41: 321-342.
12.
Ward LM, Lockhead GRSequential effects and memory in category judgements. Journal of Experimental Psychology1970; 84: 27-34.
13.
Fotios SA, Cheal C.Evidence for response contraction bias in side-by-side matching tasks . Lighting Research and Technology2007; 39: 159-169.
14.
Poulton ECBiases in quantitative judgements. Applied Ergonomics1982; 13: 31-42.
15.
Luckiesh M. , Moss FKSeeing in tungsten, mercury and sodium lights . Transactions of the Illuminating Engineering Society1936; 31: 655-674.
16.
Ray S.The evaluation of a daylight tungsten lamp for task lighting. Under-graduate student research project, Department of Human Sciences, Loughborough University, 1989.
17.
Tversky A., Kahneman D.Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, New Series1974; 185: 1124-1131.
18.
Newsham G., Arsenault C., Veitch J., Tosco A., Duval C.Task lighting effects on office worker satisfaction and performance, and energy efficiency. Leukos2005; 1: 7-26.
19.
Gescheider GAPsychophysics: The Fundamentals. Mahwah (NJ) : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997.
20.
Harrington REEffect of color temperature on apparent brightness . Journal of the Optical Society of America1954; 44: 113-116.
21.
Fotios SALamp colour properties and apparent brightness: a review. Lighting Research and Technology2001; 33: 163-181.
22.
Fotios SA, Houser KW, Cheal C.Counterbalancing needed to avoid bias in side-by-side brightness matching tasks. Leukos2008; 4: 207-223.
23.
Fotios SA, Houser KWResearch methods to avoid bias in categorical ratings of brightness . Leukos2009; 5: 167-181.
24.
Newsham G., Veitch J., Arsenault C., Duval C.Effects of dimming control on office worker satisfaction and performance : IESNA Annual Conference. Tampa, Florida, July, 2004: 19-41.
25.
Rea MS, Ouellette MJRelative visual performance: A basis for application. Lighting Research and Technology1991; 23: 135-144.
