A Review of Human Physiological Responses to Light: Implications for the Development of Integrative Lighting Solutions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Architectural lighting has potent biological effects but applied lighting practices that capitalize on this potential have been limited. In this review, we endeavor to consolidate and synthesize key references that will be useful for lighting professionals, with the goal of supporting knowledge translation into pragmatic lighting strategies. Specifically, we explain relevant terminology, outline basic concepts, identify key references, provide a balanced overview of the current state of knowledge, and highlight important remaining questions. We summarize the physiological effects of light on human health and well-being, including a description of the processes underlying the photic regulation of circadian, neuroendocrine, and neurobehavioral functions. We review seminal work elucidating the elements mediating the potency of light for these physiological responses, with specific attention to factors critical for interpreting those findings. In parallel, we explain and endorse melanopic Equivalent Daylight Illuminance ($\ E^{D65}_{v,mel}$) as the preferred measure to quantify the biological potency of light. Ultimately, while future studies are necessary to further facilitate the translation of laboratory knowledge to domestic and workplace settings, the immediate potential for applied lighting to better support human health is clear. Aiming for integrative lighting solutions that have biologically high potency light during the day and low potency during the night is perhaps the most immediate improvement to be made in order to better support applications for humans.
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.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it