Preferred Surface Luminances in Offices, by Evolution

Forty participants viewed a series of greyscale images of a typical non-daylit, open-plan partitioned office, and rated them for attractiveness. The image was projected onto a screen at realistic luminances and 54 percentof full size. The images in the series were geometrically identical, but the luminances of important surfaces were independently manipulated. Initially, the combinations of luminances were random, but as the session continued, a genetic algorithm was used to generate new images that generally retained features of prior images that were rated most highly. As a result, the images presented converged on an individual's preferred combination of luminances. The results demonstrated that this technique was effective in reaching a participant's preferred combination of luminances. There were significant differences in room appearance ratings of the most attractive image compared to other images, and the differences were in the expected direction. Factor analysis of ratings of the most attractive images revealed a factor structure with some similarity to that obtained when people rated real office spaces. Furthermore, preferred luminances were similar to those chosen by people in real settings, as was the variation in preferences between individuals. Finally, subjective ratings of brightness, uniformity and attractiveness were significantly related to luminances in the image.

[1]  Craig Caldwell,et al.  Tracking a Criminal Suspect Through "Face-Space" with a Genetic Algorithm , 1991, ICGA.

[2]  Ian D. Bishop,et al.  Subjective responses to computer simulations of urban environments , 2002 .

[3]  John E. Flynn,et al.  Procedures for Investigating the Effect of Light on Impression , 1977 .

[4]  Martin Moeck Designed Appearance Lighting - Revisited , 2001 .

[5]  Guy R. Newsham,et al.  Lighting quality recommendations for VDT offices: a new method of derivation , 2001 .

[6]  T. Daniel,et al.  REPRESENTATIONAL VALIDITY OF LANDSCAPE VISUALIZATIONS: THE EFFECTS OF GRAPHICAL REALISM ON PERCEIVED SCENIC BEAUTY OF FOREST VISTAS , 2001 .

[7]  Jennifer A. Veitch,et al.  Preferred luminous conditions in open-plan offices: research and practice recommendations , 2000 .

[8]  John E. Flynn,et al.  A Guide to Methodology Procedures for Measuring Subjective Impressions in Lighting , 1979 .

[9]  Scott Danford,et al.  Subjective Responses To Architectural Displays , 1975 .

[10]  Ardeshir Mahdavi,et al.  Subjective Evaluation of Architectural Lighting Via Computationally Rendered Images , 2002 .

[11]  Guy R. Newsham,et al.  Lighting quality and energy-efficiency effects on task performance , 1998 .

[12]  Michael F. Cohen,et al.  Radioptimization: goal based rendering , 1993, SIGGRAPH.

[13]  L. Loe,et al.  Appearance of lit environment and its relevance in lighting design: Experimental study , 1994 .

[14]  J. Gill Hierarchical Linear Models , 2005 .

[15]  study Newsham,et al.  Preferred surface luminances in offices , by evolution : a pilot , 2002 .

[16]  S. H. A. Begemann,et al.  Preferred Luminances in Offices , 1987 .

[17]  Douglas W. Yu,et al.  Beauty Is in the Eye of the Beholder , 2010, Phunny Stuph.

[18]  Neil H. Eklund,et al.  Multi-Objective Optimization of Spectra Using Genetic Algorithms , 2001 .

[19]  KW Houser,et al.  The subjective response to linear fluorescent direct/indirect lighting systems , 2002 .

[20]  Joop J. Hox,et al.  Applied Multilevel Analysis. , 1995 .

[21]  Ian Ashdown,et al.  Non-Imaging Optics Design Using Genetic Algorithms , 1994 .

[22]  Kevin G. Suffern,et al.  Painting with light , 2002, SIGGRAPH '02.

[23]  M. O. Lai,et al.  Experimental Set-up , 1998 .

[24]  Jennifer A. Veitch,et al.  Perceived room brightness: Pilot study on the effect of luminance distribution , 1995 .