We determined the visual efficiency and visual discomfort for users of a typical transitional space in luminous climates. The subject moves from a brighter exterior to a dimmer interior, facing an abrupt change in the level of lighting as a potential functional vision barrier, mainly for ageing people. We measured suprathreshold visual efficiency in different age groups, recognising two Landolt ring orientations and answering some visual discomfort questions. Results show: oldest group (60–67) needed more than 3 times the time required by the youngest group (25–30) to perform the task but, in terms of discomfort, there are no noticeable effects regarding the disturbance or the sensation of reduction of mobility produced by the lighting changes in the transitional space among the three different groups.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GinsburgAP. Contrast sensitivity and functional vision. International Ophthalmology Clinics2003; 43: 5–15.
2.
ColomboEMO'DonellBMSantillánJEIssollioLA. Functional vision barriers: A new concept analyzed in terms of human visual performance. Psychology and Neuroscience2013; 6: 219–226.
3.
LeggeGEYuDKallieCSBochslerTMGageR. Visual accessibility of ramps and steps. Journal of Vision2010; 10: 1–19.
4.
SagawaK. Vision of the elderly and visually impaired for accessible design in light and lighting: Proceedings of the CIE, Beijing, Vienna: CIE, 2007, pp. I2–I10.
5.
LasagnoCMPattiniAERodriguezRGColomboEM. Developing a modelling factor index for transition spaces: a case study approach. Architectural Science Review2011; 54: 215–224.
6.
BoyntonRM. Visibility losses caused by sudden luminance changes: Proceedings of the CIE, Washington, Paris: CIE, 1967, pp. 171–182.
7.
ArajiMTBoubekriMChalfounNV. An examination of visual comfort in transitional spaces. Architectural Science Review2007; 50: 349–356.
8.
DiLauraDHouserKMistrickRSteffyG. Illuminating Engineering Society Lighting Handbook, 10th. New York: IES, 2010. .
9.
BoyntonRMMillerN. Visual performance under conditions of transient adaptation. Illuminating Engineering1963; 58: 541–550.
10.
BoyntonRMRinalducciEJSternheimC. Visibility losses produced by transient adaptational changes in the range of 0.4 to 4000 footlamberts. Illuminating Engineering1969; 64: 217–227.
11.
OwsleyCSekulerRSiemsenD. Contrast sensitivity throughout adulthood. Vision Research1983; 23: 689–699.
12.
WrightGAReaMS. Age, a human factor in lighting. Proceedings of the International Conference on Occupational Ergonomics, Toronto, 1984,, 1984508–512.
13.
HigginsKEJaffeMJCarusoRCde MonasterioFM. Spatial contrast sensitivity: effects of age, test–retest, and psychophysical method. Journal of the Optical society of America A1988; 5: 2173–2180.
14.
AdrianWGibbonsR. The Correlations Model of Vision and Visual Performance (Technical Report), Vienna: CIE, 1999.
15.
WealeRA. Retinal illumination and age. Transactions of the Illuminating Engineering Society1961; 26: 95–100.
16.
WinnBWhitakerDElliottDBPhillipsNJ. Factors affecting light-adapted pupil size in normal human subjects. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science1994; 35: 1132–1137.
17.
ArtalPFerroMMirandaINavarroR. Effects of aging in retinal image quality. Journal of the Optical Society of America A1993; 10: 1656–1662.
18.
PearsonPSchmidtLLy-SchroederESwansonW. Ganglion cell loss and age-related visual loss: A cortical pooling analysis. Optometry and Vision Science2006; 83: 444–454.
19.
BirrenJEShockNW. Age changes in rate and level of visual dark adaptation. Journal of Applied Physiology1950; 2: 407–411.
20.
EisnerAFlemingSAKleinMLMauldinWM. Sensitivities in older eyes with good acuity: Cross-sectional norms. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science1987; 28: 1824–1831.
21.
CoileDCBakerHD. Foveal dark adaptation, photopigment regeneration, and aging. Visual Neuroscience1992; 8: 27–39.
22.
GaffneyAJBinnsAMMargrainTH. Aging and cone dark adaptation. Optometry and Vision Science2012; 89: 1219–1224.
ColomboEMIssollioLASantillánJEAguirreRC. What characteristics a clinical CSF system has to have?Optica Applicata2009; 39: 415–428. .
25.
HoodDCFinkelsteinMASensitivity to light. In: BoffKRKaufmanLThomasJP (eds). Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, New York: Wiley, 1986, pp. 5-1–5-3.
26.
WyszeckiGStilesW. Color Science: Concepts and Methods, Quantitative Data and Formulae 1st Edition, New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1982.
27.
CurcioCAMillicanCLAllenKAKalinaRE. Aging of the human photoreceptor mosaic: Evidence for selective vulnerability of rods in central retina. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science1993; 34: 3278–3296.
28.
GaoHHollyfieldJG. Aging of the human retina. Differential loss of neurons and retinal pigment epithelial cells. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science1992; 33: 1–17.
29.
SchieberF. Age and glare recovery time for low-contrast stimuli: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 1997.
30.
SchieberF. Recent developments in vision, aging and driving. Transportation Research Institute1994, pp. 1988–1994.
31.
SchieberF. Age and glare recovery time for low-contrast stimuli. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 1994.
32.
Haegerstrom-PortnoyG. The Glenn A. Fry Award Lecture 2003: Vision in elders-summary of findings of the SKI study. Optometry and Vision Science2005; 82: 87–93.
33.
LordSR. Visual risk factors for falls in older people. Age and Ageing2006; 35: ii42–ii45.
34.
HarwoodRH. Visual problems and falls. Age and Ageing2001; 30: 13–18.
35.
KasaharaSOkabeSNakasatoNOhnoY. Eye movement patterns of the elderly during stair descent: Effect of illumination. Journal of Light and Visual Environment2007; 31: 134–145.
