Light in the Senior Home: Effects of Dynamic and Individual Light Exposure on Sleep, Cognition, and Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disrupted sleep is common among nursing home patients and is associated with cognitive decline and reduced well-being. Sleep disruptions may in part be a result of insufficient daytime light exposure. This pilot study examined the effects of dynamic "circadian" lighting and individual light exposure on sleep, cognitive performance, and well-being in a sample of 14 senior home residents. The study was conducted as a within-subject study design over five weeks of circadian lighting and five weeks of conventional lighting, in a counterbalanced order. Participants wore wrist accelerometers to track rest-activity and light profiles and completed cognitive batteries (National Institute of Health (NIH) toolbox) and questionnaires (depression, fatigue, sleep quality, lighting appraisal) in each condition. We found no significant differences in outcome variables between the two lighting conditions. Individual differences in overall (indoors and outdoors) light exposure levels varied greatly between participants but did not differ between lighting conditions, except at night (22:00-6:00), with maximum light exposure being greater in the conventional lighting condition. Pooled data from both conditions showed that participants with higher overall morning light exposure (6:00-12:00) had less fragmented and more stable rest-activity rhythms with higher relative amplitude. Rest-activity rhythm fragmentation and long sleep duration both uniquely predicted lower cognitive performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".