Conventional measures of discomfort from glare are based on glare source properties like luminous intensity or luminance and typically are valid only to specific situations and to specific types of light sources. For instance, the unified glare rating (UGR) is intended for indoor lighting conditions with medium-sized glare sources, whereas another class of glare measures is specifically devoted to car headlamps. Recently, CIE TC 3-57 started with the aim to develop a more generic glare sensation model based on the human visual system. We present an example of such a model, including a detailed description of aspects like pupil constriction, retinal image formation, photoreceptor response and adaptation, receptive field-type filtering in the retina and neural spatial summation. The linear correlation of the model to UGR in an indoor setting and to subjective glare responses in an outdoor-like setting indicate that the human-visual-system-based model may indeed be considered generic.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Commission International de l’Éclairage. Discomfort Glare in Interior Lighting. CIE 117:1995. Vienna: CIE, 1995.
2.
Commission International de l’Éclairage. Discomfort Glare in the Interior Working Environment. CIE 055:1983. Vienna: CIE, 1983.
3.
Commission International de l’Éclairage. Discomfort Glare in Road Lighting and Vehicle Lighting. CIE 243:2021. Vienna: CIE, 2021.
4.
Commission International de l’Éclairage. Discomfort Caused by Glare From Luminaires With a Non-Uniform Source Luminance. CIE 232:2019. Vienna: CIE, 2019.
5.
ReaM. The what and the where of vision lighting research. Lighting Research and Technology2018; 50: 14–37.
6.
WilkinsAJNimmo-SmithITaitAMcManusCDella SalaSTilleyA, et al. A neurological basis for visual discomfort. Brain1984; 107: 989–1017.
7.
CottarisNPJiangHDingXWandellBABrainardDH. A computational-observer model of spatial contrast sensitivity: effects of wave-front-based optics, cone-mosaic structure, and inference engine. Journal of Vision2019; 19: 8.
8.
BargaryGJiaYBarburJL. Mechanisms for discomfort glare in central vision. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science2014; 56: 464–471.
9.
DonnersMAHVissenbergMCJMGeerdinckLMVan den Broek-CoolsJHFBuddemeijer-LockA. A psychophysical model of discomfort glare in both outdoor and indoor applications. In: CIE 216:2015 Proceedings of the 28th Session of the CIE, Manchester, United Kingdom, 28 June–4 July 2015, pp.1602–1611.
10.
DonnersMAHVissenbergMCJMGeerdinckLMVan den Broek-CoolsJHFBuddemeijer-LockA. A psychophysical model of discomfort glare for both indoor and outdoor applications. In: CIE x042:2016 Proceedings of CIE 2016 “Lighting Quality and Energy Efficiency”, Melbourne, Australia, March 2016, pp.142–151.
11.
ScheirGHDonnersMAHGeerdinckLMVissenbergMCJMHanselaerPRyckaertWR. Visual discomfort prediction based on receptive fields. In: CIE x042:2016 Proceedings of CIE 2016 “Lighting Quality and Energy Efficiency”, Melbourne, Australia, March 2016, pp.195–203.
12.
SafdarMLuoMRMughalMFKuaiSYangYFuL, et al. A neural response-based model to predict discomfort glare from luminance image. Lighting Research and Technology2018; 50: 416–428.
13.
ScheirGHDonnersMAHGeerdinckLMVissenbergMCJMHanselaerPRyckaertWR. A psychophysical model for visual discomfort based on receptive fields. Lighting Research and Technology2018, 50, 205–217.
14.
BartenPGJ. Contrast Sensitivity of the Human Eye and Its Effects on Image Quality. Bellingham, WA: SPIE Optical Engineering Press, 1999.
15.
BurnsSAWebbRH. Chapter 28: Optical generation of the visual stimulus. In BassMVan StrylandEWWilliamsDRWolfeWL editors. Handbook of Optics: Fundamentals, Techniques, and Design, Volume I, 2nd edition.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1995: 28.1–28.27.
16.
IJspeertJKVan den BergTJTPSpekreijseH. An improved mathematical description of the foveal visual point spread function with parameters for age, pupil size and pigmentation. Vision Research1993; 33: 15–20.
17.
ValetonJMvan NorrenD. Light adaptation of primate cones: an analysis based on extracellular data. Vision Research1983; 23: 1539–1547.
18.
NormannRABaxterBSRavindraHAndertonPJ. Photoreceptor contributions to contrast sensitivity: applications in radiological diagnosis. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics1983; SMC-13: 944–953.
19.
CaoDZeleAJPokornyJ. Linking impulse response functions to reaction time: rod and cone reaction time data and a computational model. Vision Research2007; 47: 1060–1074.
RucciMAhissarEBurrD. Temporal coding of visual space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences2018; 22: 883–895.
22.
RodieckRW. Quantitative analysis of cat retinal ganglion cell response to visual stimuli. Vision Research1965; 5: 583–601.
23.
Enroth-CugellCRobsonJG. The contrast sensitivity of retinal ganglion cells of the cat. The Journal of Physiology1966; 187: 517–552.
24.
CronerLJKaplanE. Receptive fields of P and M ganglion cells across the primate retina. Vision Research1995; 35: 7–24.
25.
StrasburgerHRentschlerIJuettnerM. Peripheral vision and pattern recognition: a review. Journal of Vision2011; 11: 13.
26.
TurnerMHSchwartzGWRiekeF. Receptive field center-surround interactions mediate context-dependent spatial contrast encoding in the retina. eLife2018; 7: e38841.
27.
QuickRF. A vector-magnitude model of contrast detection. Kybernetik1974; 16: 65–67.
28.
ShepardRN. Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space. Journal of Mathematical Psychology1964; 1: 54–87.
29.
LuckieshMGuthSK. Brightness in visual field at borderline between comfort and discomfort (BCD). Illuminating Engineering1949; 44: 650–670.
30.
AkashiYMuramatsuRKanayaS. Unified Glare Rating (UGR) and subjective appraisal of discomfort glare. Lighting Research and Technology1996; 28: 199–206.
31.
TashiroTKawanobeSKimura-MinodaTKohkoSIshikawaTAyamaM. Discomfort glare for white LED light sources with different spatial arrangements. Lighting Research and Technology2015; 47: 316–337.
