Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Evening exposure to electric light can acutely suppress melatonin levels and adversely affect subsequent sleep. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis investigating the influence of evening illuminance levels on polysomnographically (PSG)-assessed sleep. We also explored how melanopsin (expressed in melanopic equivalent daylight illuminance (EDI) affects human sleep features. We included polysomnographic laboratory sleep studies with healthy humans for effects of illuminance and exposure duration, for pre-sleep exposures between 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. From 440 identified articles, 114 met eligibility criteria for screening, and 21 also reported type of light source/spectral characteristics, with 12 identified as eligible for review. Meta-analysis showed evening light affects sleep latency, sleep efficiency and slow wave sleep, with overall effect sizes (95% confidence interval) of 0.69 (−0.50; 1.88), 0.34 (−0.13; 0.82) and −0.61 (−1.85; 0.62), respectively. Estimated melanopic EDI in the range of 100–1000 lx yielded clear dose–response relationships for sleep latency and sleep efficiency, but not for slow wave sleep. Whilst illuminance and duration indicated no apparent effects for a single evening light exposure on PSG-assessed sleep latency, sleep efficiency and slow wave sleep, we observed evidence for a relationship between light exposure and sleep effects based on melanopic EDI. Hence, melanopic EDI may provide a robust predictor of non-visual responses on human sleep.

1. Introduction

With the advent of electric lighting and the use of self-luminous devices, light has also found its way into our bedrooms. This has allowed for different pre-sleep activities (e.g., reading in bed) by forcing away darkness and lengthening the day.¹ Importantly, light maximally shifts human circadian melatonin and core body temperature rhythms around dawn and dusk.^2,3 Thus, special attention in the use of artificial light needs to be taken in the evening after sunset when countless people switch to electric light prior bedtime. In fact, current recommendations for healthy evening indoor light exposure in residential areas endorse maximum light levels of 10 lx as the melanopic equivalent daylight illuminance (melanopic EDI) at least 3 hours before bedtime.⁴ Melanopic EDI represents the metric for predicting a circadian impact of environmental illumination on melatonin suppression.⁵ Although the recommended evening photopic illuminance in⁴ is rather low and corresponds to ∼25 lx for a fluorescent light source with 3000 K, it represents a good trade-off between the visual and non-visual comfort zone of light in healthy adults only minimally affecting melatonin secretion but still allowing usual evening activities (e.g., watching TV) at home. According to a recent study by Cain et al., 2020,⁶ the average “melanopic illuminance” 3 hours prior bedtime was about “20 melanopic lux”, corresponding to 18 lx (melanopic EDI) for LED and fluorescent light.

Non-visual effects of light comprise many physiological and neuropsychological measures in humans ranging from circadian gene expression to subjective perception of alertness and mood (for reviews, see^7,8). Another photoreceptor system besides rods and cones forms a key element in transmitting the non-visual action of light to the brain, namely the intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) containing the photopigment melanopsin.^9,10 Animal work shows that ipRGCs yield a strong afferent input to the central circadian pacemaker in the suprachiasmatic nuclei (SCN), but also project to the olivary pretectal nucleus (OPN) mediating pupillary light responses and the ventrolateral preoptic nucleus (VLPO), which plays an important role in regulating sleep.¹¹ Thus, via ipRGCs, light influences behaviours essential for our health and quality of life, such as sleep, but are mostly independent of image formation.¹² Recent recommendations for light exposure are based on data from 18 laboratory studies using both monochromatic and/or polychromatic light sources, which reported non-visual light responses for circadian phase shifting of melatonin or core body temperature rhythms, increased subjective perception of alertness, and acute melatonin suppression.¹³ Results from different studies showed that these three non-visual effects of light can be best-predicted by a melanopic irradiance-response model.^13–16 However, it remains unresolved whether other non-visual effects of light, particularly its repercussions on sleep, can be modelled similarly. So far, studies on non-visual effects of light focusing on sleep reported mixed results, particularly PSG-assessed sleep outcomes such as sleep latency, sleep efficiency and slow wave sleep (for a review, see¹⁷). Furthermore, light’s effects on human sleep hallmarks has not yet been quantified by the use of recent CIE metrics⁵ for ipRGC-driven light responses.

Thus, here we focused on light’s effects on human sleep, more specifically the ramifications of evening light exposure on the following night-time sleep episode. For this purpose, we conducted a systematic review to investigate the impact of different illuminance levels in the evening on PSG-assessed sleep of healthy participants in controlled laboratory studies. Based on previously reported light-driven effects on sleep architecture (for reviews, see^18,19), we selected the following PSG-derived sleep measures for our analyses: sleep latency, sleep efficiency (i.e., percentage of time asleep during time in bed) and slow wave sleep (i.e., deep sleep, stages 3 and 4 or N3). Firstly, we performed a meta-analysis to test the prediction that pre-sleep light exposure acutely lengthens sleep latency, reduces sleep efficiency and reduces time spent in slow wave sleep. Secondly, we tested the prediction that pre-sleep light exposure affects those three sleep measures in a dose-dependent manner. Thirdly, as an exploratory analysis, we investigated whether the effects of pre-sleep light exposure on sleep latency, sleep efficiency and slow wave sleep depend on the dosing of melanopic EDI, as is currently reported for increased subjective alertness, circadian phase shifting and melatonin suppression.¹³

2. Methods

This systematic review was conducted in accordance to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).²⁰ Eligibility criteria were that (1) the studies included humans, (2) sleep was assessed polysomnographically in a laboratory setting, (3) illuminance levels and duration of light exposure were reported, (4) the type of light source and/or spectral characteristics were indicated, and (5) the active light and control light exposure occurred in the evening during the time interval from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. prior to night-time sleep and lasted at least 30 minutes. There were no restrictions regarding study design, prior light history, participants’ sex or age. Letters to the editor, conference abstracts and literature reviews were excluded.

2.1 Search and study selection

The search was performed on 22 January 2021 in the databases PubMed® and Web of Science. The search string included the following items: ((Light title OR Lighting title) AND Sleep title) AND human MeSH (Medical Subject Headings)). After removing duplicates, the search yielded 440 articles, which were screened by C.C. for exclusion of studies in clinical settings with patients (69) and studies without PSG measures (247), resulting in 114 remaining studies that were assessed for eligibility by four independent reviewers (C.C., I.S., S.L.C. and O.S.). All reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full texts, in that order, for inclusion/exclusion. Results from these four independent screenings were compared, and disagreements were resolved by mutual consensus, and finally resulted in 21 studies to be included for further analyses.

2.2 Data collection process and data items

Study selection and data extraction were independently performed by the same researchers (C.C., I.S., S.L.C. and O.S.) for all 21 studies included in the review.^21–42 The data for each study was collected in an excel sheet and included: (1) reference information; (2) participant characteristics; (3) PSG measures (i.e., sleep latency, slow wave sleep, sleep efficiency); and (4) type of light source, light measures (i.e., illuminance, colour temperature, spectral data) and the timing and duration of evening light exposure (see Table 1). Of note, sleep structure endpoints such as sleep latency, sleep efficiency and slow wave sleep were selected instead of electroencephalographic sleep homeostasis hallmarks (e.g., slow wave activity) given the translational relevance of light effects on sleep structure. Furthermore, mean values and standard deviations for all outcomes (sleep latency, slow wave sleep and sleep efficiency) were extracted from most articles. However, if these were not provided in tables or text, the online tool WebPlotDigitizer⁴³ was used to extract the data. Polysomnographically assessed sleep latencies as indexed by the time between lights off and the first occurrence of the sleep stage N2 (defined by the occurrence of specific electroencephalographic features such as a K-complex or a sleep spindle⁴⁴) was used by all studies except for.^28,32 Komada et al. (2000) used sleep onset measures as defined by,⁴⁵ and Green et al. 2017 defined sleep latency as the first 30-second epoch of three continuous 30-second epochs of PSG defined sleep. The reported light stimuli of the studies were then converted into the new standard for measuring non-visual light effects: the SI quantity “melanopic equivalent daylight illuminance” (melanopic EDI). This was conducted by D.L. with the use of an automated toolkit.

Table 1

Description of the included studies and subgroups

#	Study name	Study design	Light timing	N act	N con	Active Mel EDI [lx]	Control Mel EDI [lx]	Exposure duration [min]	diff SL [min]	diff SE [min]	diff SWS [min]
1	Saletu (25)^a	Within	Combined evening and morning light	10	10	2295.0	n.p.	420	6.6	0.6	8.5
2	Drennan (22)^a	Between	Evening light 3x	9	9	2768.0	168.9	180	4.4	−3.1	n.p.
3	Dawson (40)^a	Between	Shift work study (night light)	7	6	3377.5	112.6	240	0	11.7	n.p.
4	Cajochen (24)	Within	Evening light 1x	7	7	2110.0	3.4	180	19.8	−1.2	5.7
5	Dumont (23)^a	Within	Shift work study (evening light)	8	8	6919.0	56.3	300	28.1	n.p.	n.p.
6	Cajochen (31)	Within	Evening light 1x	10	10	3642.0	5.6	180	6.3	−1.1	−3.4
7	Gordijn (29)^a	Between	Evening light 3x	12	12	1407.3	5.6	180	2.0	n.p.	n.p.
8	Komada (28)	Within	Evening light 1x	7	7	1407.3	5.6	40	14.1	n.p.	n.p.
9	Burgess (27)	Within	Evening light 1x	16	16	1688.7	5.6	270	5.7	n.p.	n.p.
10	Kozaki (26)	Within	Evening light 1x	7	7	670.7	384.9	390	−2.0	−0.6	−6.3
10	Kozaki (26)	Within	Evening light 1x	7	7	819.8	384.9	390	−0.4	−1.4	−4.7
11	Münch (42)	Within	Evening light 1x	8	8	71.2	0.5	120	−0.2	3.7	−2.8
11	Münch (42)	Within	Evening light 1x	8	8	18.4	0.5	120	−1.3	0.2	−3.4
12	Takasu (38)^a	Within	All day light 7x	8	8	2814.6	5.6	960	3.8	−0.7	5.6
13	Cajochen (36)	Within	Evening light 1x	8	8	62.8^b	5.1	120	−4.3	−0.7	1.3
13	Cajochen (36)	Within	Evening light 1x	8	8	62.8^b	5.1	120	−0.8	0.9	2.3
14	Münch (30)^a	Within	Evening light 4x	10	10	806.2	2.8	120	9.6	−2.4	0.9
15	Shanti (39)	Within	Evening light 1x	22	20	34.0	0.6	240	0.3	0.7	−1.4
		Within	Evening light 1x	22	20	46.9	0.6	240	1.0	0.5	−0.3
		Within	Evening light 1x	20	20	149.2	0.6	240	6.9	−1.0	−1.0
		Within	Evening light 1x	21	20	773.8	0.6	240	6.9	−0.7	−0.9
16	Chellappa (21)	Within	Evening light 1x	30	30	13.3	7.8	120	−0.1	2.6	−0.1
16	Chellappa (21)	Within	Evening light 1x	30	30	21.3	7.8	120	−0.3	2.1	−0.4
17	Cho (37)^a	Within	Light during sleep 1x	10	10	22.5	0.5	480	−0.3	−0.2	−3.8
18	Chang (33)	Within	Evening light 1x	12	12	28.0	0.6	240	9.9	−1.0	1.0
19	Cho (34)^a	Within	Light during sleep 1x	11	11	4.0	0.5	480	−0.73	−1.2	−0.27
19	Cho (34)^a	Within	Light during sleep 1x	12	12	7.9	0.5	480	3.2	−1.6	−0.26
20	Rångtell (41)	Within	Evening light 1x	16	16	100.4	22.9	120	−0.36	0.9	2.07
21	Green (32)	Within	Evening light 1x	19	19	354.0	61.6	120	2.8	−0.9	−2.2
21	Green (32)	Within	Evening light 1x	19	20	156.0	35.6	120	2.2	0.1	−1.0

^aExcluded for analyses (for details, see section 3.1).

^bCorrected for unilateral light exposure according to Spitschan and Cajochen (2019); n.p. = not provided.⁷⁰

2.3 Statistics

Forest plots were used to illustrate and compare weighted mean differences (WMD) across studies. The WMD is the average value after pooling results of individual studies. The contribution of each study to the mean difference is weighted by its sample size. Heterogeneity among studies was estimated by the Cochran Q test and quantified by the I² statistic.⁴⁶ The Doi plot and the LFK index were used as graphical and quantitative method for detecting bias in meta-analysis according to Furuya-Kanamori et al. ⁴⁷. The graphical outputs and the statistics were performed by MetaXL 5.3 (Epigear International), which is an add-in for meta-analysis in Microsoft Excel. Dose–response relationships between melanopic EDI and the sleep measures were performed by SigmaPlot (Ver.11, SystatSoftware, Inc) via its dynamic fit wizard function. The best model fits were chosen based on the best r ² value.

3. Results

3.1 Study selection and characteristics

Figure 1 illustrates the study selection procedure according to PRISMA. From 964 records, excluding duplicates, there were 440 identified articles, 114 articles were eligible as they met criteria 1 to 3 of our study selection. Of those, only 21 articles met the fourth criterion of our study selection and are listed in Table 1. Of the 21 studies, nine were excluded due to the following reasons: Saletu et al. ²⁵ used a combined morning and evening light treatment for their active light condition; Drennan et al. ²² used a shift work paradigm applying bright light during three consecutive evenings; Dawson et al. ⁴⁰ used light at night from 0:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. during a simulated night shift; Dumont et al. ²³ applied bright light on three consecutive evenings; Gordijn et al. ²⁹ also used multiple evening light exposures (three times); Takasu et al. ³⁸ exposed their volunteers to bright light from 8:00 a.m. to 0:00 a.m. for 7 days; Münch et al. ³⁰ applied evening light treatment on four consecutive nights; and in the studies of Cho et al. ^34,37 volunteers were exposed to light during their night-time sleep episode while asleep. Although some of these nine studies provided results supporting our initial hypotheses (see Table 1), they did not intend to measure acute effects of evening light exposure on subsequent sleep, but rather secondary light effects on sleep most likely due to changes in the circadian timing system. In fact, most of these studies reported significant changes in either circadian phase of core body temperature or melatonin rhythms, along with the observed sleep changes.

Figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram of the literature screening

The remaining 12 studies investigated the acute effects of a single evening light exposure on PSG-assessed sleep structure and reported results for sleep latency (12 studies), sleep efficiency (10 studies) and slow wave sleep (10 studies). As such, these articles were deemed eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis.

3.2 Studies with quantitative analyses

Twelve studies entered quantitative analyses, with six studies providing more than two evening light conditions. The studies entered the meta-analysis irrespective of reporting alpha-opic illuminances and the type of study design, yet, the resulting studies coincidently all used a within-subject design. Overall, 20 different evening lighting conditions entered the meta- and dose–response analyses (see Table 1). Figure 2 panels a–c show the results of the meta-analyses for the three sleep measures: sleep latency, sleep efficiency and slow wave sleep, respectively. The results for total sleep time are provided in Supplemental Figure S1.

Figure 2

(a)–(c) Forest plots for the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for (a) sleep latency (min), (b) sleep efficiency (%) and (c) slow wave sleep (min or % of total sleep time). Positive effect sizes indicate longer sleep latencies, higher sleep efficiency and more time spent in slow wave sleep after the active light in comparison with a control evening light condition, whereas negative effect sizes indicate the reverse.

3.3 Effects of pre-sleep evening light on sleep latency

Out of the 20 data points (i.e., 20 different evening lighting conditions used in the 12 selected studies) included in the meta-analysis for sleep latency (see Figure 2(a)), 10 showed null or negative differences between the active and control light groups, while the other 10 showed positive differences (longer sleep latencies) after the active light condition resulting in a mean difference of +4.5 min (SEM: 7.5 min). The effect size for sleep latency was 0.69 (95% CI: −0.5; 1.88).

3.4 Effects of pre-sleep evening light on sleep efficiency

Out of the 18 data points (i.e., 18 different evening lighting conditions used in the 12 selected studies) included in the meta-analysis for sleep efficiency (see Figure 2(b)), nine showed negative differences between the active and control light groups (i.e., reduced sleep efficiency after active light), while nine showed positive differences after the active light condition resulting in a mean difference of +0.17% (SEM: 1.4%). The effect size for total sleep efficiency was 0.34 (95% CI: −0.14; 0.82).

3.5 Effects of pre-sleep evening light on slow wave sleep

Out of the 18 data points (i.e., 18 different evening lighting conditions used in the 12 selected studies) included in the meta-analysis for slow wave sleep (see Figure 2(c)), 13 showed negative differences between the active and control light groups (i.e., less slow wave sleep after active light), while five had positive differences after the active light condition resulting in a mean difference of −1.2 min (SEM: 6.4 min). The effect size for total sleep time was −0.61 (95% CI: −1.85; 0.62).

3.6 Between-study heterogeneity and potential bias

The between-study heterogeneity quantified by the I² statistic resulted in I² values of 2% for sleep latency, 16% for sleep efficiency and 0% for slow wave sleep, respectively. Our values indicated a low between-study heterogeneity according to Higgins et al.,⁴⁸ who assigned low, moderate and high heterogeneity to I² values of 25%, 50% and 75%. Potential bias according to the Doi plots and LFK values are illustrated in Figure 3. These plots indicated a major asymmetry for sleep latency, a minor asymmetry for sleep efficiency and no asymmetry for slow wave sleep.

Figure 3

Doi plots for sleep latency, sleep efficiency and slow wave sleep. These plots visualise asymmetry and provide the Luis Furuya-Kanamori (LFK) index, to detect and quantify asymmetry of study effects in Doi plots. The closer the value of the LFK index to zero, the more symmetrical the Doi plot. The Doi plot is a folded variant of the normal quantile v effect plot. The studies form the limbs of this funnel. For more details see⁴⁷

3.7 Melanopic EDI as predictor of non-visual responses on sleep

Grouping the data for sleep latency according to the melanopic EDI resulted in a dose–response relationship, which could best be modelled with an exponential growth function: $y = y_{0} + \frac{a \cdot (e^{b \cdot x} - 1)}{b}$ with a goodness of fit of r = 0.59, p = .027 (see Figure 4(a)). Dose–response relationships for melanopic EDI and sleep efficiency and total sleep time could be best fitted by linear regressions (r = −0.64, p = .0026; r = −0.64, p = .0031, respectively; for Spearman rank order correlation, see Figure 4(b) and Supplemental Figure S1B). For slow wave sleep, no significant dose-relationship with melanopic EDI was found (see Figure 4(c)). Similar dose-relationships were obtained by including the light exposure duration of the different studies expressed as melanopic EDI dose in lux minutes (lx min) as can be seen in Supplemental Figure S2.

Figure 4

(a) Dose-response relationship between melanopic equivalent daylight illuminance (melanopic EDI, lx) and sleep latency (min), by study and subgroups. The data were modelled according to: $y = y_{0} + [a \cdot (e^{b \cdot x} - 1) / b]$ with a goodness of fit of r = 0.59, p = .027. (b) Dose–response relationship between melanopic equivalent daylight illuminance (EDI) and sleep efficiency (%). The data were fitted according to: $y = y_{0} + a \cdot x$ with a goodness of fit of r = −0.66, p = .0026. (c) Dose–response relationship between melanopic equivalent daylight illuminance (melanopic EDI, lx) and slow wave sleep (min). The data were fitted according to: $y = y_{0} + a \cdot x$ with a goodness of fit of r = −0.23, p = .347. Studies which did not have a dim light control as defined as melanopic EDI < 8 lx are marked with grey dots

4. Discussion

4.1 Summary of findings

Our meta-analysis indicates no clear evidence that a single evening light exposure alters PSG-assessed sleep. The medium effect sizes of 0.69 and −0.61 for sleep latency and slow wave sleep, respectively, along with the fact that the overall 95% confidence intervals only slightly touched or passed the zero (i.e. the no effect line), suggest that a single evening light exposure might lead to a longer time to fall asleep and to a reduction in deep sleep. Importantly, we show that melanopic EDI, the best available metric to predict melatonin suppression, is a robust predictor of the effects of evening pre-sleep light on sleep, as indexed by its dose-dependent effects on night-time sleep measures. Based on the I² values, we do not have evidence for robust differences underlying the results of the studies included in our meta-analysis (heterogeneity).⁴⁸ In contrast, publication bias⁴⁷ may have played a role, as indicated by the large asymmetry (LFK value of 3.3) for sleep latency.

When grouping the data according to the different evening lighting conditions used in the 12 selected studies by melanopic EDI (as in ⁵), we found significant dose–response relationships for melanopic EDI and sleep latency, sleep efficiency, but not for slow wave sleep. These dose–response relationships remained the same when accounting for light exposure duration, expressing the melanopic EDI light dose (in lx min). As such, it is unlikely that differences in light exposure duration within each study mask our reported dose–response relationships between melanopic EDI (in lx) and sleep structure. In contrast to Prayag et al. (2019)¹⁴ and Brown (2020),¹³ who successfully model dose-relationships for melanopic EDI and melatonin suppression in the evening using a four-parameter logistic model, our data could best be fit with an exponential growth curve for sleep latency or with linear regressions for sleep efficiency and total sleep time. Thus, our dose-relationships for the sleep response to melanopic EDI point to both exponential and linear models depending on the sleep outcome. The exponential model for sleep latency is likely based on the non-normally distributed data for sleep latency. In other words, good sleepers either fall asleep within 10 minutes or go beyond this time interval with a non-linear (exponential) increase. Brighter lighting conditions in the evening may favour the latter. The reason for the discrepant models describing light’s dose-dependent suppression of melatonin and our observed sleep effects may be due to differences in temporal acuteness. The light impact emerged at evening melanopic EDI levels close to 1000 lx for sleep latency, and close to 100 lx for sleep efficiency and total sleep time. The latter corresponds to the half-max response model for melanopic EDI and melatonin suppression reported earlier.^13,14

A plethora of reasons may explain different characteristics of light’s dose-relationships on melatonin suppression and PSG-derived measures. First, the timing in melatonin suppression and sleep study protocols is different. Melatonin suppression is measured during acute light exposure. At the same time, sleep usually follows 1–2 hours after the end of the light exposure treatment and encompasses sleep measures taken during the entire 8-hour sleep episode thereafter. We excluded studies in which sleep was measured more than 24 hours after the last evening light exposure.^29,30 Assessments of sleep variables more than 24 hours after the last light exposure, as well as after multiple evenings with light exposure treatments, rather appraise indirect effects of light on sleep mediated by changes in the circadian timing system.³¹ Evening light can phase delays human circadian melatonin and core body temperature rhythms,^2,3 leading to a shorter phase angle between the dim light melatonin onset (DLMO) and preferred usual bedtime, thereby exacerbating the adverse effects on sleep as reported in the following studies.^22,23,29,30 Of note, applying light while asleep (i.e., during the entire 8-hour sleep episode) has been shown to reduce slow wave sleep.^34,37 However, such light exposure is likely less frequent in daily life and is against the recommended maximal ambient melanopic EDI of 1 lx measured at the eye during night-time in residential areas.⁴

Second, brain structures underlying sleep regulation differ from brain circuits controlling melatonin secretion in mammals, including humans (for a review, see Cajochen et al. ⁷). Although, it is certain that light is the main synchroniser of circadian rhythms by setting the circadian phase of neuronal activity in the central pacemaker in the suprachiasmatic nuclei (SCN) in mammals,⁴⁹ extra SCN pathways are crucial for the impact of light on sleep.^50,51 This is because the most important photoreceptors for light’s non-visual effects, the intrinsically photosensitive ganglion cells, develop different subtypes, which form a complex system targeting different brain regions responsible for eliciting different behaviours including the sleep-wake behaviour.^52–54

A third reason for the difference between fitting melatonin and sleep measure data in response to light could simply lie in the characteristics of the data distribution and its variability. Both measures, melatonin suppression by light and PSG-assessed sleep ability, show high inter-individual differences.^55,56 For sleep studies, volunteers are usually screened for a good night sleep in the lab before study inclusion. In contrast, individuals are never screened for their ability to suppress melatonin by light prior to study inclusion. Thus, in controlled laboratory sleep studies, a selection bias in recruiting only good sleepers increase homogeneity in the sleep measures compared with studies only measuring melatonin suppression without any melatonin-related inclusion criteria. In all studies included in our meta-analysis, volunteers were screened for good sleep, and all underwent a within-subject design (i.e., each volunteer was its own control). Still, the confidence intervals of the included endpoints varied considerably among studies (see Figure 2). Thus, it is unclear whether sleep measures such as sleep latency, sleep efficiency and slow wave sleep or melatonin measures show higher individual differences. This may be important to clarify, since it has recently been reported that individual differences in light sensitivity (i.e., indexed by melatonin suppression) affect sleep and circadian rhythms.⁵⁶

4.2 Strengths

A key strength of this systematic review is that we only included laboratory studies using PSG-assessed sleep, which (despite limited real-life suitability) is still the current gold standard in human sleep research and sleep medicine.⁵⁷ Subjective (e.g., questionnaires) and objective (e.g., PSG) sleep measurements display huge discrepancies, particularly for symptoms of disturbed sleep (e.g., sleep latency and number of awakenings). Many studies report disrupted subjective sleep quality with mixed and/or inconclusive results for objective sleep.^58–60 Our systematic review focused on objectively assessed sleep characteristics (i.e. sleep latency, sleep efficiency, total sleep time and slow wave sleep), which were standardised according to previous work.^44,61. Hence, we minimised a potential source of heterogeneity regarding the effects of subjective/objective sleep characteristics.

All studies reported at least the timing and duration of light exposure in the evening. All studies reported quantitative light measurements at least photopic illuminance (in lx), some correlated colour temperature, and most of the studies indicated the lamp type used (see Supplemental Table). This is particularly relevant, as many studies often do not report these minimum requirements of light specifications.⁶² Furthermore, all studies included in the analysis applied a within-study design, some with multiple evening light conditions. While continuous outcomes from within- and parallel studies can be included in meta-analyses using weighted mean difference and the standardised weighted mean difference, the relative weight of the crossover design is larger in combined-design meta-analysis.⁶³ Thus, comparisons of relative intensities of light within the same study designs (here, within-subject designs) were possible in our analysis. This aspect was lacking in a former review on the effects of light on sleep in community-dwelling adults, and thus a dose–response rate of the light amount in relation to sleep was not possible.¹⁷ Of note, while the control light condition within each study was oftentimes dim (i.e., melanopic EDI < 8 lx), in some studies the control condition did not represent an actual dim light control. Due to the relatively low number of studies, we could not perform additional analyses controlling for this potential covariate of interest. Hence, the dose–response relationships might be affected by this potential source of differences. This highlights the need for future research involving non-visual light effects on sleep to carefully select actual dim light conditions to enable appropriate comparisons with active light conditions.

4.3 Limitations

We included only controlled laboratory studies with healthy good sleepers. While this is a first step to establish whether light per se affects sleep, the translational relevance to sleep disturbances, particularly insomnia disorder, is limited. There is growing interest in using wearable devices to monitor sleep (e.g., wrist-worn actigraphs). While wearable devices like actigraphs are overall a useful and valid means for estimating e.g., total sleep time and wakefulness after sleep onset in field and workplace studies, there are limitations regarding the specificity with other markers including sleep efficiency.⁶⁴ Another major drawback is that only a few studies provided light spectra, which does not conform to the current recommendations on how to report light exposure in human chronobiology and sleep research experiments.^5,62 Moving forward, adherence to the minimum reporting guidelines will be needed for specifying light exposure and stimulus conditions in sleep research to enable meta-analyses of light data.^5,62

4.4 Future directions

Future work is needed to include cumulative light exposure from the natural environment and electrical light during office hours across days to investigate how prior light history affects human sleep.⁶⁵ This is of importance since daytime and early-evening exposure to bright light can mitigate some of the sleep-disruptive consequences of light exposure in the later evening.⁶⁶ Recently, healthy individuals exposed to evening/night blue-depleted light (melanopic EDI range: 6–19 lx) had increased total sleep time and REM duration, as compared to a standard lighting (melanopic EDI range: 27–63 lx) in a hospital setting.⁶⁷ These findings highlight the translational relevance of designing buildings or hospital units, taking into account optimal evening and night-time light settings. Furthermore, one should account for individual differences in both melatonin suppression and sleep structure changes in response to light. Accordingly, individuals with high light sensitivity may exhibit worse sleep quality after evening/night light exposure than those with low light sensitivity.⁵⁶ Future work is also needed to include potential effects of the light source size (e.g., smartphone vs. an evenly lit room). This is of ecological relevance, since many people, including adolescents, spend long durations in front of a small light emitting device, which is often the only light source in a dark room prior to sleep.⁶⁸ Lastly, homeostatic sleep measures, including slow wave activity, should be assessed and reported in future sleep studies, since there is emerging evidence that environmental light also affects homeostatic sleep-wake regulation in humans⁶⁹ and has been repeatedly shown to be reduced in the first NREM-REM sleep cycle after evening light exposure.^21,24,42

5. Conclusion

Using photopic measures alone, our meta-analysis indicates no apparent effects for a single evening light exposure on PSG-assessed sleep latency, sleep efficiency and slow wave sleep. Of translational relevance to the light field, we show that melanopic EDI, which is currently the best metric to predict hallmarks of circadian photosensitivity (e.g., melatonin suppression) is an accurate predictor of the effects of evening pre-sleep illumination levels on hallmarks of sleep physiology. The latter was assessed here as the impact of evening on pre-sleep illumination levels on PSG-derived sleep measures in a dose-dependent manner. Collectively, melanopic EDI is likely to be a relevant predictor of non-visual responses on PSG-assessed human sleep under laboratory conditions. Ultimately, our findings have ramifications for future light recommendations in residential areas and concepts of light hygiene in sleep medicine.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-lrt-10.1177_14771535221078765 – Supplemental Material for Influence of evening light exposure on polysomnographically assessed night-time sleep: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-lrt-10.1177_14771535221078765 for Influence of evening light exposure on polysomnographically assessed night-time sleep: A systematic review with meta-analysis by C Cajochen, O Stefani, I Schöllhorn, D Lang and SL Chellappa in Lighting Research & Technology

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

C Cajochen

SL Chellappa

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Ramirez

. The Alchemy of Us: How Humans and Matter Transformed One Another. Cambridge: MIT Press Ltd, 2020.

Khalsa

Jewett

Cajochen

Czeisler

. A phase response curve to single bright light pulses in human subjects. The Journal of Physiology 2003; 549: 945–952.

Minors

Waterhouse

Wirz-Justice

. A human phase-response curve to light. Neuroscience Letters 1991; 133: 36–40.

Brown

Brainard

Cajochen

Czeisler

Hanifin

Lockley

et al. Recommendations for healthy daytime, evening, and night-time indoor light exposure . PLoS Biol. 2022; 20: e3001571.

International Commission of Illumination, C.

CIE System for Metrology of Optical Radiation for IPRGC-Influenced Responses to Light, in CIE S 026/E:2018. Vienna: CIE, 2018. Divsion 6.

Cain

McGlashan

Vidafar

Mustafovska

Curran

SPN

Wang

et al. Evening home lighting adversely impacts the circadian system and sleep. Scientific Reports 2020; 10: 19110.

Cajochen

Chellappa

Schmidt

. What keeps us awake?-the role of clocks and hourglasses, light, and melatonin. International Review of Neurobiology 2010; 93: 57–90.

Milosavljevic

. How does light regulate mood and behavioral state? Clocks & Sleep 2019; 1: 319–331.

Hattar

Liao

H-W

Takao

Berson

Yau

K-W

. Melanopsin-containing retinal ganglion cells: architecture, projections, and intrinsic photosensitivity. Science 2002; 295: 1065–1070.

10.

Provencio

Rodriguez

Jiang

Hayes

Moreira

Rollag

. A novel human opsin in the inner retina. The Journal of Neuroscience 2000; 20: 600–605.

11.

Peirson

Brown

Pothecary

Benson

Fisk

. Light and the laboratory mouse. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 2018; 300: 26–36.

12.

LeGates

Fernandez

Hattar

. Light as a central modulator of circadian rhythms, sleep and affect. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2014; 15: 443–454.

13.

Brown

. Melanopic illuminance defines the magnitude of human circadian light responses under a wide range of conditions. Journal of Pineal Research 2020; 69: e12655.

14.

Prayag

Najjar

Gronfier

. Melatonin suppression is exquisitely sensitive to light and primarily driven by melanopsin in humans. Journal of Pineal Research 2019; 66: e12562.

15.

Tekieh

Lockley

Robinson

McCloskey

Zobaer

Postnova

. Modeling melanopsin-mediated effects of light on circadian phase, melatonin suppression, and subjective sleepiness. Journal of Pineal Research 2020; 69: e12681.

16.

Nowozin

Wahnschaffe

Rodenbeck

de Zeeuw

Hädel

Kozakov

et al. Applying melanopic lux to measure biological light effects on melatonin suppression and subjective sleepiness. Current Alzheimer Research 2017; 14: 1042–1052.

17.

Dautovich

Schreiber

Imel

Tighe

Shoji

Cyrus

et al. A systematic review of the amount and timing of light in association with objective and subjective sleep outcomes in community-dwelling adults. Sleep Health 2019; 5: 31–48.

18.

Chellappa

Gordijn

MCM

Cajochen

. Can light make us bright? Effects of light on cognition and sleep. Progress in Brain Research 2011; 190: 119–133.

19.

Santhi

Ball

. Applications in sleep: how light affects sleep. Progress in Brain Research 2020; 253: 17–24.

20.

Moher

Shamseer

Clarke

Ghersi

Liberati

Petticrew

et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews 2015; 4: 1.

21.

Chellappa

Steiner

Oelhafen

Lang

Götz

Krebs

et al. Acute exposure to evening blue-enriched light impacts on human sleep. Journal of Sleep Research 2013; 22: 573–580.

22.

Drennan

Kripke

Gillin

. Bright light can delay human temperature rhythm independent of sleep. The American Journal of Physiology 1989; 257: R136–R141.

23.

Dumont

Carrier

. Daytime sleep propensity after moderate circadian phase shifts induced with bright light exposure. Sleep 1997; 20: 11–17.

24.

Cajochen

Dijk

Borbély

. Dynamics of EEG slow-wave activity and core body temperature in human sleep after exposure to bright light. Sleep 1992; 15: 337–343.

25.

Saletu

Dietzel

Lesch

Musalek

Walter

Grünberger

. Effect of biologically active light and partial sleep deprivation on sleep, awakening and circadian rhythms in normals. European Neurology 1986; 25: 82–92.

26.

Kozaki

Kitamura

Higashihara

Ishibashi

Noguchi

Yasukouchi

. Effect of color temperature of light sources on slow-wave sleep. Journal of Physiological Anthropology and Applied Human Science 2005; 24: 183–186.

27.

Burgess

Sletten

Savic

Gilbert

Dawson

. Effects of bright light and melatonin on sleep propensity, temperature, and cardiac activity at night. Journal of Applied Physiology 2001; 91: 1214–1222.

28.

Komada

Tanaka

Yamamoto

Shirakawa

Yamazaki

. Effects of bright light pre‐exposure on sleep onset process. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 2000; 54: 365–366.

29.

Gordijn

MCM

Beersma

DGM

Korte

Hoofdakker

. Effects of light exposure and sleep displacement on dim light melatonin onset. Journal of Sleep Research 1999; 8: 163–174.

30.

Münch

Scheuermaier

Zhang

Dunne

Guzik

Silva

et al. Effects on subjective and objective alertness and sleep in response to evening light exposure in older subjects. Behavioural Brain Research 2011; 224: 272–278.

31.

Cajochen

Kräuchi

Danilenko

Wirz‐justice

. Evening administration of melatonin and bright light: interactions on the EEG during sleep and wakefulness. Journal of Sleep Research 1998; 7(3): 145–157.

32.

Green

Cohen-Zion

Haim

Dagan

. Evening light exposure to computer screens disrupts human sleep, biological rhythms, and attention abilities. Chronobiology International 2017; 34(7): 855–865.

33.

Chang

A-M

Aeschbach

Duffy

Czeisler

. Evening use of light-emitting eReaders negatively affects sleep, circadian timing, and next-morning alertness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2015; 112: 1232–1237.

34.

Cho

C-H

Lee

H-J

Yoon

H-K

Kang

S-G

Bok

K-N

Jung

K-Y

et al. Exposure to dim artificial light at night increases REM sleep and awakenings in humans. Chronobiology International 2016; 33: 117–123.

35.

Santhi

Aeschbach

Horowitz

Czeisler

. The impact of sleep timing and bright light exposure on attentional impairment during night work. Journal of Biological Rhythms 2008; 23: 341–352.

36.

Cajochen

Biase

Imai

. Interhemispheric EEG asymmetries during unilateral bright-light exposure and subsequent sleep in humans. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 2008; 294: R1053–R1060.

37.

Cho

Joo

Koo

Hong

. Let there be no light: the effect of bedside light on sleep quality and background electroencephalographic rhythms. Sleep Medicine 2013; 14: 1422–1425.

38.

Takasu

Hashimoto

Yamanaka

Tanahashi

Yamazaki

Honma

et al. Repeated exposures to daytime bright light increase nocturnal melatonin rise and maintain circadian phase in young subjects under fixed sleep schedule. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 2006; 291: R1799–R1807.

39.

Santhi

Thorne

van der Veen

Johnsen

Mills

Hommes

et al. The spectral composition of evening light and individual differences in the suppression of melatonin and delay of sleep in humans. Journal of Pineal Research 2012; 53: 47–59.

40.

Dawson

Campbell

. Timed exposure to bright light improves sleep and alertness during simulated night shifts. Sleep 1991; 14: 511–516.

41.

Rångtell

Ekstrand

Rapp

Lagermalm

Liethof

Búcaro

et al. Two hours of evening reading on a self-luminous tablet vs. reading a physical book does not alter sleep after daytime bright light exposure. Sleep Medicine 2016; 23: 111–118.

42.

Münch

Kobialka

Steiner

Oelhafen

Wirz-Justice

Cajochen

. Wavelength-dependent effects of evening light exposure on sleep architecture and sleep EEG power density in men. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 2006; 290: R1421–R1428.

43.

Rohatgi

. WebPlotDigitizer. cited 2021; Version 4.4:Web based tool to extract data from plots, images, and maps, 2021. Available from, https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer/.

44.

Rechtschaffen

. A Manual of Standardized Terminology, Techniques and Scoring System of Sleep Stages in Human Subjects. Brain Information Service/Brain Research. Los Angeles: University of California, 1968.

45.

Hori

Hayashi

Morikawa

. Topographical EEG changes and the hypnagogic experience. In Ogilvie

Harsh

, editors. Sleep Onset: Normal and Abnormal Processes. Washington: American Psychological Association, 1994: 237–253.

46.

Borenstein

Hedges

Higgins

JPT

Rothstein

. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Hoboken: C.J.W.a. Sons, 2011.

47.

Furuya-Kanamori

Barendregt

Doi

SAR

. A new improved graphical and quantitative method for detecting bias in meta-analysis. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare 2018; 16: 195–203.

48.

Higgins

JPT

Thompson

Deeks

Altman

. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557–560.

49.

Herzog

. Neurons and networks in daily rhythms. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2007; 8: 790–802.

50.

Hubbard

Kobayashi Frisk

Ruppert

Tsai

Fuchs

Robin-Choteau

et al. Dissecting and modeling photic and melanopsin effects to predict sleep disturbances induced by irregular light exposure in mice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2021; 118: 25.

51.

Rupp

Ren

Altimus

Fernandez

Richardson

Turek

et al. Distinct ipRGC subpopulations mediate light’s acute and circadian effects on body temperature and sleep. Elife 2019; 8: e44358.

52.

Aranda

Schmidt

. Diversity of intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells: circuits and functions. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 2021; 78: 889–907.

53.

Schmidt

Chen

S-K

Hattar

. Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells: many subtypes, diverse functions. Trends in Neurosciences 2011; 34: 572–580.

54.

Gaggioni

Maquet

Schmidt

Dijk

D-J

Vandewalle

. Neuroimaging, cognition, light and circadian rhythms. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 2014; 8: 126.

55.

Phillips

AJK

Vidafar

Burns

McGlashan

Anderson

Rajaratnam

SMW

et al. High sensitivity and interindividual variability in the response of the human circadian system to evening light. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2019; 116: 12019–12024.

56.

Chellappa

. Individual differences in light sensitivity affect sleep and circadian rhythms. Sleep 2021; 44: zsaa214.

57.

Perez-Pozuelo

Zhai

Palotti

Mall

Aupetit

Garcia-Gomez

et al. The future of sleep health: a data-driven revolution in sleep science and medicine. NPJ Digital Medicine 2020; 3: 42.

58.

Lund

Rybarczyk

Perrin

Leszczyszyn

Stepanski

. The discrepancy between subjective and objective measures of sleep in older adults receiving CBT for comorbid insomnia. Journal of Clinical Psychology 2013; 69: 1108–1120.

59.

Voderholzer

Al-Shajlawi

Weske

Feige

Riemann

. Are there gender differences in objective and subjective sleep measures? A study of insomniacs and healthy controls. Depression and Anxiety 2003; 17: 162–172.

60.

Trimmel

Eder

Böck

Stefanic-Kejik

Klösch

Seidel

. The (mis)perception of sleep: factors influencing the discrepancy between self-reported and objective sleep parameters. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine 2021; 17: 917–924.

61.

Iber

Ancoli-Israel

Chesson

Quan

. The AASM Manual for the Scoring of Sleep and Associated Events: Rules, Terminology, and Technical Specifications, Vol. 1. Westchester, IL: American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 2007.

62.

Spitschan

Stefani

Blattner

Gronfier

Lockley

Lucas

. How to report light exposure in human chronobiology and sleep research experiments. Clocks & Sleep 2019; 1: 280–289.

63.

Curtin

Altman

Elbourne

. Meta-analysis combining parallel and cross-over clinical trials. I: Continuous outcomes. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21: 2131–2144.

64.

Marino

Rueschman

Winkelman

Ellenbogen

Solet

et al. Measuring sleep: accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of wrist actigraphy compared to polysomnography. Sleep 2013; 36: 1747–1755.

65.

Wams

Woelders

Marring

van Rosmalen

Beersma

DGM

Gordijn

MCM

et al. Linking light exposure and subsequent sleep: A field polysomnography study in humans. Sleep 2017; 40: zsx165.

66.

Te Kulve

Schlangen

LJM

van Marken Lichtenbelt

. Early evening light mitigates sleep compromising physiological and alerting responses to subsequent late evening light. Scientific Reports 2019; 9: 16064.

67.

Vethe

Scott

Engstrom

Salvesen

Sand

Olsen

et al. The evening light environment in hospitals can be designed to produce less disruptive effects on the circadian system and improve sleep. Sleep 2021; 44: zsaa194

68.

Perrault

Bayer

Peuvrier

Afyouni

Ghisletta

Brockmann

et al. Reducing the use of screen electronic devices in the evening is associated with improved sleep and daytime vigilance in adolescents. Sleep 2019; 42: zsz125

69.

Cajochen

Reichert

Maire

Schlangen

LJM

Schmidt

Viola

et al. Evidence that homeostatic sleep regulation depends on ambient lighting conditions during wakefulness. Clocks & Sleep 2019; 1: 517–531.

70.

Spitschan

Cajochen

. Binocular facilitation in light-mediated melatonin suppression? Journal of Pineal Research 2019; 67: e12602.

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.

0.00 MB

0.88 MB