Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42789515›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Infrared exposure improves human colour vision undermined by LED light.

Mark Robinson, Edward Barrett, Glen Jeffery

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mark RobinsonUniversity College London, Institute of Ophthalmology and Bartlett School of Architecture, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Edward BarrettUniversity College London, Institute of Ophthalmology and Bartlett School of Architecture, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Glen JefferyUniversity College London, Institute of Ophthalmology and Bartlett School of Architecture, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8777-4521

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Life evolved under sunlight (200-4000nm). Incandescent lighting was similar (200-3000nm). But modern light-emitting diodes (LED) produce only a narrow band of visible light (400-700nm), eliminating >90% of the solar spectrum. Light impacts life, partly through mitochondrial modulation with different wavelengths triggering opposing metabolic responses. Longer red/infrared wavelengths (650-1000nm) improve metabolism and ageing patterns, while blue light (420-450nm) undermines these processes. The retina has the highest metabolic rate in the body and the greatest density of mitochondria. Hence, visual ability may be vulnerable to changes in the light environment which negatively affects mitochondrial performance. We ask if standard LED lighting reduces visual performance in terms of colour discrimination ability, and whether adding 850nm infrared improves it. We tested colour discrimination with a standard Farnsworth-Munsell 100-Hue test in 55 subjects then divided them into those exposed to standard LED desk lighting or LED lights supplemented with 850nm infrared for a week. Controls were unexposed. There were no changes in controls but significant reductions of 33% in colour performance scores in the LED group and significant improvements of 23% in colour performance scores in those supplemented with 850nm. The implications for public health warrant further investigation as LED lighting continues to be widely adopted in the built environment.

Indexed as

Color PerceptionColor VisionInfrared RaysLightingBlue LightFemaleHumansLightMale

Identifiers

PMID42789515
PMCPMC13614600

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.