This review considers the impact of light source spectral power distribution (SPD) on brightness perception and visual performance in mesopic conditions, with emphasis on the comparison of metal halide (MH) and high pressure sodium (HPS) lamps. Models of mesopic vision predict that SPD is a significant variable in that at a HPS photopic luminance of 0.100 cd/m2, MH need only produce about 0.070-0.075 cd/m2 to be seen as equally bright. However, attempts to validate the predictions of these models in the field have met with mixed success. As for visual performance, experimentation has shown that there are effects of SPD in mesopic conditions, but the magnitude of these effects depends on the nature of the task. Three alternative approaches are suggested for comparing light sources with different SPDs in mesopic conditions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Commission Internationale de l’é clairage. CIE 1988 28 Spectral Luminous Efficiency Function for Photopic Vision, CIE Publication 86-1990, Vienna: CIE, 1990.
2.
Comerford JP, Kaiser PK.Luminous efficiency functions determined by heterochromatic brightness matching. J. Opt. Soc. Amer.1975; 64: 466-468.
3.
Wald, G.Human vision and the spectrum. Science1945; 101: 653-658.
4.
Sekular R, Blake R.Perception. New York: McGraw Hill, 1994.
5.
Sagawa K.Seventy Years of CIE Photometry: Proceedings of the CIE Symposium on Advances in Photometry. CIE Publication-009-1995, Vienna: CIE, 1995.
6.
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). The IESNA lighting handbook, 9th Edition. New York: IESNA, 2000.
7.
Boyce PR.Human factors in lighting. London: Taylor and Francis, 2003.
8.
British Standards Institution (BSI). BS 5489 Road Lighting: Part 3, Code of practice for lighting for subsidiary roads and associated pedestrian areas. London: BSI, 1992.
9.
British Standards Institution. (BSI). BSEN 13201-2:2003, Road lighting: Part 2; Performance requirements. London: BSI, 2003.
10.
British Standards Institution (BSI). BS5489- 1:2003, Code of practice for the design of road lighting: Part 1, Lighting of roads and public amenity areas. London: BSI, 2003.
11.
Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage. Light as a true visual quantity. CIE Publication 41. Vienna: CIE, 1978.
12.
Boyce PR, Eklund NH, Hamilton BJ, Bruno, LD.Perceptions of safety at night in different lighting conditions. Lighting Res. Technol.2000; 32: 79-91.
13.
Painter K.Street lighting, crime, and fear of crime: a summary of research. In Bennett TH editor. Preventing crime and disorder: targeting strategies and responsibilities. 22nd Cropwood Round Table Conference, Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge, 1996.
14.
Van Bommel WJM. Caminada E.Considerations for the lighting of UK residential areas for non-motorised traffic: Proceedings of CIBSE National Lighting Conference. London: CIBSE, 1982.
15.
Sullivan JM, Flannagan MJ.Assessing the potential benefit of adaptive headlighting using crash databases. University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute Report UMTRI-99-21, Ann Arbor, MUI: University of Michigan, 1999.
16.
Palmer DA.A system of mesopic photometry. Nature1996; 209: 276-281.
17.
Kokoschka S, Bodmann HW.A consistent system for the photometric evaluation of radiation over the whole range of adaptation: Proceedings of the 18th Session of the CIE, London. Paris: CIE, 1975.
18.
Ikeda M, Shimozono H.Mesopic luminous-efficiency functions. J. Opt. Soc. Am.1981; 71: 280-284.
19.
Kokoschka S, Adrian W.Influence of field size on the spectral sensitivity of the eye in the photopic and mesopic range, Am. J. Optom. Physiol. Optics1984; 62: 119-126.
20.
Trezona PW.A system of mesopic photometry. Color Res. Appl.1991; 16: 202-216.
21.
Sagawa K, Takeichi K.System of mesopic photometry for evaluating lights in terms of comparative brightness relationships. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A1992; 9: 1240-1246.
22.
Adrian, W.The influence of spectral power distribution for equal visual performance in roadway lighting level: Proceedings of the Vision at Low Light Levels Symposium. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, 1998.
23.
He Y, Bierman A, Rea M.A system of mesopic photometry. Lighting Res. Technol.1998; 30: 175-181.
24.
Berman S, Clear R.Additivity constraints and visual task considerations in mesopic photometry. J. Illum. Eng. Soc.2001; 30: 90-104.
25.
Berman S.Critique and simplification of mesopic visual performance lighting research: Proceedings of the Progress in Automobile Lighting Symposium. Darmstadt, Germany: Darmstadt University of Technology, 2003.
26.
Lewin I.Lumen effectiveness multipliers for outdoor lighting design. J. Illum. Eng. Soc.2001; 30: 40-52.
27.
Rea, MS, Bullough JD, Freyssinier JP, Bierman A. A proposed unified system of photometry. Lighting Res. Technol.2004; 36: 85-111.
28.
Lewis AL.Equating light sources for visual performance at low luminances. J. Illum. Eng. Soc.1998; 27: 80-84.
29.
Lingard R, Rea MS.Off-axis detection at mesopic light levels in a driving context. J. Illum. Eng. Soc.2002; 31: 33-39.
30.
Vrabel PL, Bernecker CA, Mistrick RG.Visual performance and visual clarity under electric light sources: Part II—Visual clarity. J. Illum. Eng. Soc.1998; 27: 29-41.
31.
Fotios SA, Levermore, GJ.The perception of electric light sources of different colour properties. Lighting Res. Technol.1997; 29: 161-171.
Boyce PR.Investigations of the subjective balance between illuminance and lamp colour properties. Lighting Res. Technol.1977; 9: 11-24.
34.
Kaiser P.Models of heterochromatic brightness matching. CIE Journal1986; 5: 57-59.
35.
Fotios SA, Levermore GJ.Chromatic effect on apparent brightness in interior spaces 1: Introduction and color gamut models. Lighting Res. Technol.1998; 30: 97-102.
36.
Fotios SA, Levermore GJ.Chromatic effect on apparent brightness in interior spaces 11: SWS lumens model. Lighting Res. Technol.1998; 30: 103-136.
37.
Fotios SA, Levermore GJ.Chromatic effect on apparent brightness in interior spaces 111: Chromatic brightness models. Lighting Res. Technol.1998; 30: 107-110.
38.
Rea MS.Essay by invitation. Lighting Design and Application1996; October: 15-16.
39.
Luckiesh M, Taylor AH.Tungsten, mercury and sodium illuminants at low brightness levels. J. Opt. Soc. Am.1938; 28: 237-240.
Randhawa HS, Visual characteristics of light sources for residential road lighting: Proceedings of the NPL-CIE-UK Conference Visual Scales: Photometric & Colorimetric Aspects. Teddington UK: NPL, 1997.
42.
Fotios SA.Experimental conditions to examine the relationship between lamp colour properties and apparent brightness. Lighting Res. Technol.2002; 34: 29-38.
43.
Fotios SA.An error in brightness matching associated with the application of dimming. Lighting Res. Technol.2001; 33: 223-231.
44.
van Creveld K.An investigation into the relationship between luminance and brightness of strongly chromatic light sources, Lighting Res. Technol.1999; 31: 117-122.
45.
Fotios SA.An investigation into the relationship between luminance and brightness of strongly chromatic light sources by K van Creveld, letter to the editor. Lighting Res. Technol.2000; 32: 234-235.
46.
Rea MS, Bierman A, McGowan T, Dickey F, and Havard J.A field test comparing the effectiveness of metal halide and high pressure sodium illuminants under mesopic conditions, Proceedings of the NPL-CIE-UK conference, Visual Scales: Photometric and Colorimetric Aspects. Teddington, UK: NPL, 1997.
47.
Boyce PR, Bruno LD.An evaluation of high pressure sodium and metal halide light sources for parking lot lighting. J. Illum. Eng. Soc.1999; 28: 16-32.
48.
Farrow D.Street lighting using compact fluorescent PL. ILE mini paper competition, 1994.
49.
Jones G.A subjective assessment of residential road lighting, Proceedings of the CIBSE National Lighting Conference, University of Bath. London: CIBSE, 1996.
50.
de Boer JB.The application of sodium lamps to public lighting. Illum. Eng.1961; 56: 293-312.
51.
de Boer JB, Burghout F, van Heemskerck Veeckens JFT. Appraisal of the quality of public lighting based on road surface luminance and glare, Proceedings of the CIE, Brussels. Paris: CIE, 1959.
52.
Eloholma M, Halonen L, Setala K.The effects of light spectrum on visual acuity in mesopic lighting levels, In Proceedings: Vision at Low Light Levels. Palo Alto CA: EPRI, 1999.
53.
Luckiesh M, Moss FK.Seeing in tungsten, mercury and sodium lights. Trans. Illum. Eng. Soc.1936; 31: 655-674.
54.
Lewis AL.Visual performance as a function of spectral power distribution of light sources at luminances used for general outdoor lighting. J. Illum. Eng. Soc.1999; 28: 37-42.
55.
Chen L. The accuracy of color naming under different light sources at low photopic to low mesopic conditions. MSc thesis. Troy, New York: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1998.
56.
Boynton R, Olson C.Locating basic colors in the OSA space. Color Res. Appl.1987; 12: 94-94.
57.
He Y, Rea MS, Bierman A, Bullough, J.Evaluating light source efficacy under mesopic conditions using reaction times. J. Illum. Eng. Soc.1997; 26: 125-138.
58.
Walkey HC. Visual performance in the mesopic range. PhD thesis. London: City University, 2003.
59.
Raynham P, Saksvikrlønning T.White light and facial recognition. The Lighting J.2003; 68: 29-33.
60.
Eloholma M, Ketomaki J, Orrevetelainen P, Halonen L.Pedestrian visibility in road lighting conditions, ‘Iluminat 2003’ 2nd International Lighting Conference. Cluj Napoca. Romania, 2003: 17-1-17-6.
61.
Padgham CA, Saunders JE.The perception of light and colour. London: G. Bell and Sons Ltd, 1975.
62.
Wyszecki, G, Stiles WA.Color science: concepts and methods, quantitative data and formulas. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1982.
63.
Berman S, Clear R.Some vision and lighting issues at mesopic light levels. vision at low light levels. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, 1999.
