The Effects of the Light Necessary for Space Horticulture on Emotion, Cognition and Stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Space use horticulture systems are currently being developed and will be an important part in long duration space exploration. However, it is mostly unknown what effect exposure to these systems (specific LED lights and plants) will have on people. While exposure to nature is often associated with reduced stress, increased cognitive performance and positive emotion, research investigating LED lit environments has found effects vary depending on the lighting qualities (e.g., wavelength, intensity) among other factors. No published studies could be identified that investigate the effects of the light necessary to grow plants without sunlight. Therefore, utilizing a within-subjects design, this study will compare the short-term effects of sitting near two horticulture models: one with the light optimized for plant growth, the other, a normalized white light. Effects for emotional affect will be measured via the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), emotional arousal via the Subjective Units of Distress Scale (SUDS), cognition via the Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT), and indicators of stress (cognitive performance and heart rate variability) measured during the Montreal Stress Imaging Test (MIST). Implications will include guiding further research aimed at developing horticulture systems which optimize both plant growth and their effect on humans in space and comparable indoor environments on earth.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".