Is the “Preferred” Color Temperature Transferable from Near-Vision to Ambient Home Lighting? An Exploratory Study with People Who Have Central Visual Field Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The literature supports the importance of adequate lighting for people with visual impairments, but little is known regarding ambient color temperature at home, and the evaluation process is not standardized. Thus, this study aimed to test a method for evaluating the preferred ambient color temperature, established with a near-vision assessment in clinic, and by using standardized tools to evaluate the effects at home for people with central visual field loss. Methods: An exploratory quasi-experimental study was conducted with three interventions and six observation times. A convenience sample of eight women and two men with central visual field loss, aged 64–91 years with visual acuity between 6/21 (20/69) and 6/48 (20/158), was recruited. Two certified low vision therapists realized evaluations with Minnesota Low-Vision Reading Test, International Reading Speed Texts, a Visual Comfort Scale, a Digital Light Meter LX1330B, and Home Environment Lighting Assessment. The LuxIQ and various illuminated magnifiers were used for clinical interventions. Home lighting interventions were individualized and aimed to apply participants’ preferred color temperature in a selected room. Results: The use of the LuxIQ and illuminated magnifiers showed positive effects in near-vision for all participants by increasing reading speed and visual comfort. Home lighting interventions in participants’ kitchen ( n = 4), living room ( n = 4), or office ( n = 2) also had beneficial effects on their visual comfort and ability to perform activities of daily living. The choice of preferred color temperature was transferable from near-vision to ambient lighting for all participants but one and varied widely. Discussion: Innovative preliminary data support the importance of ambient color temperature for people with visual impairments and suggest an efficient standardized evaluation method. Further research is needed to obtain statistically significant empirical evidence in this field. Implications for practitioners: It could be beneficial for low vision therapists to evaluate the individual ambient color temperature preferences of people with visual impairments by using standardized tools.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".