This article discusses ratings of visual discomfort from glare across different buildings located in Singapore. These data were used to determine if range effects influence the vertical illuminance values for the same ratings of visual discomfort when the category rating procedure is used. The effect occurs when maxima and minima vertical illuminance (i.e. the range) vary across buildings. Our analyses showed that with a higher vertical illuminance range in a building, the mean vertical illuminance value for the same criterion of visual discomfort also increased. The results suggest that the effect caused by different ranges of measured vertical illuminance present across the buildings biased the ratings of visual discomfort. Although these effects may be unavoidable in some buildings that have vastly different levels of light, the data suggest that the overall range of vertical illuminance must be carefully evaluated when predicting visual discomfort. Matching these conditions may enable vertical illuminance to provide more reliable evaluations of discomfort due to glare.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Van Den WymelenbergKG. Visual comfort, discomfort glare, and occupant fenestration control: developing a research agenda. LEUKOS2014; 10: 207–221.
2.
VeldsM. User acceptance studies to evaluate discomfort glare in daylit rooms. Solar Energy2002; 73: 95–103.
3.
WienoldJChristoffersenJ. Evaluation methods and development of a new glare prediction model for daylight environments with the use of CCD cameras. Energy and Buildings2006; 38: 743–757.
4.
FotiosS. Using category rating to evaluate the lit environment: is a meaningful opinion captured? LEUKOS2019; 15: 127–142.
5.
PoultonEC. Bias in quantifying judgements. Hove and London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989.
6.
PoultonEC. Quantitative subjective assessments are almost always biased, sometimes completely misleading*. British Journal of Psychology1977; 68: 409–425.
7.
FotiosSKentM. Measuring discomfort from glare: recommendations for good practice. LEUKOS2021; 17(4): 338–358.
8.
KentMGFotiosSCheungT. Stimulus range bias leads to different settings when using luminance adjustment to evaluate discomfort due to glare. Building and Environment2019; 153: 281–287.
9.
LogadóttirÁChristoffersenJFotiosS. Investigating the use of an adjustment task to set the preferred illuminance in a workplace environment. Lighting Research and Technology2011; 43: 403–422.
10.
FotiosSChealC. Stimulus range bias explains the outcome of preferred-illuminance adjustments. Lighting Research and Technology2010; 42: 433–447.
11.
EN 17037. Daylight in buildings. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization, 2018.
12.
WienoldJ. Daylight glare in offices. Germany: Fraunhofer-Verlag, 2010.
13.
GreenBCA. Green mark: non-residential buildings NRB: 2015. Technical guide and requirements. Singapore: Building and Construction Authority, 2016.
14.
Singapore Building and Authority Construction. Building planning and massing. Singapore: Centre for Sustainable Buildings and Construction, Building and Construction Authority, 2010.
JakubiecJQuekGSrisamranrungruangT. Long-term visual quality evaluations correlate with climate-based daylighting metrics in tropical offices - a field study. Lighting Research and Technology2021; 53: 5–29.
17.
APA. Categorical scale – APA dictionary of psychology. Washington DC, USA: APA dictionary of psychology, https://dictionary.apa.org/categorical-scale (2020, accessed 8 December 2020).
18.
PiersonCSarey KhanieMBodartMWienoldJ. Discomfort glare cut-off values from field and laboratory studies. In: Proceedings of the 29th quadrennial session of the CIE June 14 - 22, 2019. Washington DC, USA: CONFCommission Internationale de L’Eclairage, 2019, pp. 295–305.
19.
HirningMBIsoardiGLCowlingI. Discomfort glare in open plan green buildings. Energy and Buildings2014; 70: 427–440.
20.
Van Den WymelenbergKInaniciM. A critical investigation of common lighting design metrics for predicting human visual comfort in offices with daylight. LEUKOS2014; 10: 145–164.
21.
KentMGAltomonteSWilsonRTregenzaPR. Temporal effects on glare response from daylight. Building and Environment2017; 113: 49–64.
22.
OsterhausWKEBaileyI. Large area glare sources and their effect on visual discomfort and visual performance at computer workstations. In: Conference record of the 1992 IEEE industry applications aociety annual meeting October 4-9, 1992. Houston, Texas, USA: IEEE, 1992, pp. 1825–1829.
QuekGJakubiecJA. Calibration and validation of climate-based daylighting models based on one-time field measurements: Office buildings in the tropics. LEUKOS2021; 17: 75–90.
25.
JakubiecJAVan Den WymelenbergKInaniciMMahicA. Accurate measurement of daylit interior scenes using high dynamic range photography. In: VeitchJANewshamGR (eds) Lighting Quality and Energy Efficiency. Melbourne, Australia: International Commission on Illumination, 2016.
26.
JakubiecJAVan Den WymelenbergKInaniciMMahicA. Improving the accuracy of measurements in daylit interior scenes using high dynamic range photography. In: 36th international conference on passive and low energy architecture. cities, buildings, people: towards regenerative environments, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 11–13 July 2016.
FisherRA. The arrangement of field experiments. Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture of Great Britain1926; 33: 503–513.
29.
FieldAMilesJFieldZ. Discovering statistics using R. London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications, 2012.
30.
BenjaminDJBergerJOJohannessonMNosekBAWagenmakersEJBerkR, et al.Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour2018; 2: 6–10.
31.
HauschkeDSteinijansVW. Directional decision for a two-tailed alternative. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics1996; 6: 211–213.
32.
RuxtonGDNeuhäuserM. When should we use one-tailed hypothesis testing?. Methods in Ecology and Evolution2010; 1: 114–117.
33.
HyndmanRJFanY. Sample quantiles in statistical packages. The American Statistician1996; 50: 361–365.
34.
SmirnovN. Table for estimating the goodness of fit of empirical distributions. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics1948; 19: 279–281.
35.
LillieforsHW. On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality with mean and variance Unknown. Journal of the American Statistical Association1967; 62: 399–402.
36.
OlkinI. Contributions to probability and statistics. Palo Alto, California, USA: Stanford University Press, 1960.
37.
MannHBWhitneyDR. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics1947; 18: 50–60.
38.
WilcoxonF. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin1945; 1: 80–83.
39.
AnsariARBradleyRA. Rank-sum tests for dispersions. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics1960; 31: 1174–1189.
40.
EllisPD. The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
41.
CohenJ.. The earth is round (p. American Psychologist1994; 49: 997–1003.
42.
FieldAHoleGJ. How to design and report experiments. London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications, 2011.
43.
FergusonCJ. An effect size primer: a guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice2009; 40: 532–538.
44.
TuaycharoenNTregenzaPR. View and discomfort glare from windows. Lighting Research and Technology2007; 39: 185–200.
JakubiecJAReinhartCF. A concept for predicting occupants’ long-term visual comfort within daylit spaces. LEUKOS2016; 12: 185–202.
47.
AdamsWJGrafEWErnstMO. Experience can change the ‘light-from-above’ prior. Nature Neuroscience2004; 7: 1057–1058.
48.
OlkkonenMMcCarthyPFAllredSR. The central tendency bias in color perception: effects of internal and external noise. Journal of Vision2014; 14: 1–15.
49.
WienoldJIwataTSarey KhanieMErellEKaftanERodriguezR, et al.Cross-validation and robustness of daylight glare metrics. Lighting Research & Technology2019; 51: 983–1013.
50.
FotiosSWienoldJ. Correspondence: discussion of ‘The cross validation and robustness of daylight glare metrics’. Lighting Research and Technology2020; 52: 314–317.
51.
KentMFotiosSAltomonteS. Discomfort glare evaluation: the influence of anchor bias in luminance adjustments. Lighting Research and Technology2017; 51: 131–146.
52.
KentMGFotiosS. The effect of a pre-trial range demonstration on subjective evaluations using category rating of discomfort due to glare. LEUKOS2021; 17: 43–58.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
