Face recognition is one of the interpersonal judgements carried out by pedestrians. Road lighting should enhance the visual component of such judgements after dark. This paper presents experiments carried out using two different procedures, identification and perceived recognition, to investigate why earlier studies have led to inconsistent conclusions about the influence of spectral power distribution (SPD) on face recognition. For the identification procedure, two observation durations were employed (1 s and 3 s). The two procedures led to similar conclusions regarding recognition ability at different distances. Review of these and past results suggests that an effect of lamp (SPD) is more likely to be found when the task is difficult, i.e. small size, brief observation and correctly naming the target rather than simply picking a face from a sample.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
International Commission on Illumination. CIE115-2010 Technical Report, Recommendations for the lighting of roads for motor and pedestrian traffic, Vienna: CIE, 2010.
2.
van Bommel W, Caminada E. Considerations for the lighting of residential areas for non-motorised traffic. In: CIBS National Lighting Conference, Warwick, England, April 5–7 1982: 158–167.
3.
RombautsPVandewyngaerdeHMaggettoG. Minimum semicylindrical illuminance and modelling in residential area lighting. Lighting Research and Technology1989; 21: 49–56.
4.
Fotios SA, Yang B. Measuring the impact of lighting on interpersonal judgements of pedestrians at night-time: Proceedings of the CIE Mid-term Conference: Towards a New Century of Light, Paris: 2013: 990–998.
5.
KeanaC. Evaluating the influence of fear of crime as an environmental mobility restrictor on women's routine activities. Environment and Behavior1998; 30: 60–74.
6.
HaansAde KortY. Light distribution in dynamic street lighting: Two experimental studies on its effects on perceived safety, prospect, concealment, and escape. Journal of Environmental Psychology2012; 32: 342–352.
7.
BoycePRReaMS. Security lighting: Effects of illuminance and light source on the capabilities of guards and intruders. Lighting Research and Technology1990; 22: 57–80.
8.
RaynhamPSaksvikrønningT. White light and facial recognition. The Lighting Journal2003; 68: 29–33.
9.
KnightCvan KemenadeJ. Effect of outdoor lighting on perception and appreciation of end-users. Proceedings of Licht 2006, Berne, Switzerland, September 10--132006.
10.
ReaMSBulloughJDAkashiY. Several views of metal halide and high-pressure sodium lighting for outdoor applications. Lighting Research and Technology2009; 41: 297–320.
11.
YaoQSunYLinY. Research on facial recognition and color identification under CMH and HPS lamps for road lighting. Leukos2009; 6: 169–178.
12.
Alferdinck JWAM, Hogervorst MA, van Eijk AMJ, Kusmierczyk JT. Mesopic Vision and Public Lighting – A Literature Review and a Face Recognition Experiment. TNO-DV C435, Den Haag, The Netherlands: Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, 2010.
13.
KnightC. Field surveys of the effect of lamp spectrum on the perception of safety and comfort at night. Lighting Research and Technology2010; 42: 313–329.
14.
FotiosSARaynhamP. Correspondence: Lighting for pedestrians: Is facial recognition what matters?Lighting Research and Technology2011; 43: 129–130.
15.
FotiosSAGoodmanT. Proposed UK guidance for lighting in residential roads. Lighting Research and Technology2012; 44: 69–83.
16.
BermanSMNavvabMMartinMJSheedyJTithofW. A comparison of traditional and high colour temperature lighting on the near acuity of elementary school children. Lighting Research and Technology2006; 38: 41–52.
17.
GreenPRaoV. Rating scales and information recovery- how many scales and response categories to use?Journal of Marketing1970; 3: 33–39.
18.
AlwinD. Information transmission in the survey interview: Number of response categories and the reliability of attitude measurements. Sociological Methodology1992; 22: 83–118.
19.
Jovancevic-MisicJHayhoeM. Adaptive gaze control in natural environments. The Journal of Neuroscience2009; 29(19): 6234–6238.
20.
PalmerS. Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999.
21.
DavisWOhnoY. Color quality scale. Optical Engineering2010; 49: 033602–1–16.
22.
HseeCKLoewensteinGFBlountSBazermanMH. Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin1999; 125: 576–590.
23.
FotiosSAHouserKW. Research methods to avoid bias in categorical ratings of brightness. Leukos2009; 5: 167–181.
24.
YipAWSinhaP. Contribution of color to face recognition. Perception2002; 31: 995–1003.
25.
KohkoSKawakamiKNakamuraY. A study on effects of veiling luminance on pedestrian visibility. Journal of Light and the Visual Environment2008; 32: 315–321.
26.
PersikeMMeinhardt-InjacBMeinhardG. The preview benefit for familiar and unfamiliar faces. Vision Research2013; 87: 1–9.
