ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022
Evidence for human-centric in-vehicle lighting: Part 2-Modeling illumination based on color-opponents.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multimodal in-vehicle lighting system increases daytime light exposure and alertness in truck drivers under Arctic winter conditions.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Evidence for human-centric in-vehicle lighting: part 3-Illumination preferences based on subjective ratings, eye-tracking behavior, and EEG features.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- Assessment of color preference, purchase intention and sexual attractiveness of lipstick colors under multiple lighting conditions.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Evidence for human-centric in-vehicle lighting: Part 2-Modeling illumination based on color-opponents.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Illumination preference models are usually defined in a static scenery, rating common-colored objects by a single scale or semantic differentials. Recently, it was reported that two to three illumination characteristics are necessary to define a high correlation in a bright office-like environment. However, white-light illumination preferences for vehicle-occupants in a dynamic semi- to full automated modern driving context are missing. Here we conducted a global free access online survey using VR engines to create 360° sRGB static in-vehicle sceneries. A total of 164 participants from China and Europe answered three levels in our self-hosted questionnaire by using mobile access devices. First, the absolute perceptional difference should be defined by a variation of CCT for 3,000, 4,500, and 6,000 K or combinations, and light distribution, either in a spot- or spatial way. Second, psychological light attributes should be associated with the same illumination and scenery settings. Finally, we created four driving environments with varying external levels of interest and time of the day. We identified three key results: (1) Four illumination groups could be classified by applying nMDS. (2) Combinations of mixed CCTs and spatial light distributions outperformed compared single light settings (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.