See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254213788

The Impact of Lighting/Daylighting and Reflectances on the Size Impression

of the Room. Full-scale Studies

Article  in  Architectural Science Review · June 2004

DOI: 10.1080/00038628.2004.9697034

CITATIONS READS

12 92

1 author:

Barbara Matusiak
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
114 PUBLICATIONS   226 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

DayLighting View project

Visual perception and aesthetical issues View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Barbara Matusiak on 12 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Barbara Matusiak, Size Impression of the Room

THE IMPACT OF LIGHTING/DAYLIGHTING AND

REFLECTANCES ON THE SIZE IMPRESSION OF THE ROOM.
FULL-SCALE STUDIES
Barbara Matusiak

ABSTRACT

The full-scale studies of a small tea-room were carried out at NTNU, Norway, to find out in
which way the light condition and the reflection factors of room surfaces influence the size
impression of the room.

The results indicate that the size impression of a room changes with the reflection factors
and/or illuminances on the surfaces in the room. However, a strong luminance contrast at the
border between surfaces helps the human visual system to properly evaluate dimensions of the
room. In a room without strong contrasts, the impression of a room’s dimensions can be easily
manipulated by light: the apparent size of the room increases with the mean luminance of the
room’s surfaces.
Keywords: interior lighting, daylighting, full-scale modelling, size impression, reflectance, room.

1. INTRODUCTION
The size impression of a geometrically defined room can be manipulated by changing the
reflection factors of the room surfaces and by changing the lighting conditions. Do these two
methods give similar results? For instance, will the width impression of a room be the same in
the two following situations: 1. the walls are painted white, 2. the walls are painted grey, but
they are strongly lighted? Should the luminance measured on the walls be the same to create
the same impression of width?

The pictures of the room taken with the wide-angle lens.

1
Barbara Matusiak, Size Impression of the Room

2. METHOD

As a case for the study, we have chosen a little tea-room, which functions as a meeting place
for people having their working place in a large office building. Three versions of the room were
built in full-scale, in the room-laboratory at the Faculty of Architecture and Fine Arts at the
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. The rooms have the
following dimensions: w = 3,0 m, l = 4,2 m and h = 2,5 m. They have one window and two
daylight slits situated in the shorter wall that is oriented north. The window and the slits at either
side are covered with white curtains.

Reflection factors:
White walls: 0,69
Plywood walls: 0,51
Black walls: 0,10
Floor: 0,38
White boxes
in window wall: 0,80

Figure 1. Plan of full-scale rooms.

Twenty people participated in the study: 2 adolescents, 11 people in their 20-ties, 2 in their
30-ties, 2 in their 40-ties, 2 in their 60-ties and 1 in their 70-ties. Both genders were represented
in each age group except the 70-ties. The people were asked to evaluate the size impression of
the rooms. They were also supposed to find out which of the three dimensions makes the
difference: width, height or length.
The experiments were carried twice: the first time with daylight, the second time with
electrical light.
In the experiments with daylight the daylighting conditions in rooms were kept as constant as
possible. All experiments were carried out in January 2003 around noon (11:00 – 13:00). Each
time the sky was consistently overcast; nearly no wind. Since the sun was not visible, the
daylight level outside was low and varied little during the experimentation time. The impact of
the possible variations of the luminance on the sky was additionally evened by the curtains
inside. In order to avoid the impact of the changes of the illuminance from the sky during the
experimentation time, the observers were told to visit the rooms a couple of times, so many
times they needed, to verify their impressions. They could go inside each room, look around
and go further to another. There were no restrictions to how long they should stay in the
respective rooms. Most observers used between 1 and 3 minutes for one room and visited each
room three-five times. Many of them run between the rooms. The quick change of room makes
evaluation easier, since the image of one room is still “on retina” when observer enters another
room.
The observers were given the linear scale: from very small through small, mean, large, to
very large, to mark their personal evaluation of the room size. The mean result for the size
impression of the room for all participants in the respective experiment was calculated and is
presented in the result tables in section 3. Observers were also asked to notice the impression
of the height, width and depth of the room on similar scales. Those results were used by the
author as additional information that helped to understand and analyse the answers from the
observers. The clearest results dealing with the impression of the three room dimensions are
presented as comments.

2
Barbara Matusiak, Size Impression of the Room

3. EXPERIMENTS

3.1 Daylight conditions do not change: all three rooms are lit equally by diffuse daylight
from the window-wall. The reflection factor of sidewalls and floor varies from room to
room.
Experiment 1:

Room 1 Room 2 Room 3

sidewalls █ black ▓ plywood ░ white
floor ▓ wood ▓ wood ▓ wood

Experiment 2:

Room 1 Room 2 Room 3

sidewalls █ black ▓ plywood ░ white
floor █ black ▓ plywood ░ white

Experiment 3:

Room 1 Room 2 Room 3

sidewalls █ black ▓ plywood ░ white
floor ░ white ▓ plywood █ black

3
Barbara Matusiak, Size Impression of the Room

RESULTS
Experiment 1. daylight
1∗ 2∗∗ 3∗∗∗
very small small mean large very large

Experiment 2. daylight
1 2 3
very small small mean large very large

Experiment 3. daylight
1 3 2
very small small mean large very large

The results from the exp. 1 show that the reflectance of the walls has a clear impact on the size
impression of a room. The room with black walls was evaluated as small, the room with white
walls as large. The most apparent differences were noticed regarding the width of the
respective rooms. Room 1 was evaluated as narrow, room 2 as wide and 3 as even wider than
2. Room 3 appeared also as the longest.
The positive impact of reflectance on the size impression of the room was strengthened
when the floor in rooms 1 and 3 got the same colours as the walls, exp. 2. The differences in
size impression between the three rooms were more apparent. The room 1 appeared as short
and very narrow, room 2 as wide and room 3 as very wide and long.
In exp. 3, when colours on the floor were opposite to the colours of the walls in rooms 1 and
3, people were puzzled. It was not easy to choose the largest and/or the smallest room. Room 1
appeared the smallest, room 2 appeared as somewhat larger than room 3, but differences were
very small. Room 1 appeared as narrow, but also as high; room 3 as wide but also as low.
The clear impact of the floor reflectance on the size impression of the room can be also
observed by comparing the position of the number 1, representing room 1, on the three scales.
The room 1 is evaluated as smallest in experiment 2 were the floor is black and relatively
largest in experiment 3 were the floor is white. A similar observation can be made for room 3.

∗
room no. 1
∗∗
room no. 2
∗∗∗
room no. 3

4
Barbara Matusiak, Size Impression of the Room

3.2 Electrical light do not change: all three rooms are lit equally. The reflection factor of
sidewalls and floor varies.
The same experiments were repeated with electrical light (el-light). In exp. 1, 2 and 3 the walls
were lit by wall-washers for low-voltage halogen lamps, Erco RAL 9002, and a PH lamp above
the table.

Experiment 1 with electrical light

Room 1 Room 2 Room 3

sidewalls █ black ▓ plywood ░ white
floor ▓ wood ▓ wood ▓ wood

Experiment 2 with electrical light

Room 1 Room 2 Room 3

sidewalls █ black ▓ plywood ░ white
floor █ black ▓ plywood ░ white

Experiment 3 with electrical light

Room 1 Room 2 Room 3

sidewalls █ black ▓ plywood ░ white
floor ░ white ▓ plywood █ black

5
Barbara Matusiak, Size Impression of the Room

RESULTS
Experiment 1. el-light
1 2 3
very small Small mean large very large

Experiment 2. el-light
1 2 3
very small small mean large very large

Experiment 3. el-light
1 3 2
very small small mean large very large

In exp. 1 the room with black walls was evaluated as small, the room with white walls as large.
Room 1 was evaluated as narrow, room 2 as wide and 3 as even wider than 2. Room 3
appeared also as highest.
In exp. 2 the differences were more apparent than in exp. 1 and referred to all dimensions.
The participants evaluated room 1 as short, narrow and low; room 3 as long, wide and high.
In exp. 3 with electrical light people were even more puzzled than with daylight. The result
referring to the overall size of the rooms were nearly equal as for daylight, but there was no
agreement between people about the impression of the three room’s dimensions.
Similarly to the results for daylight, the impact of the floor reflectance can be easily observed
comparing the position of the numbers 1 and 3, on the three result tables.

6
Barbara Matusiak, Size Impression of the Room

3.3 Daylight quantity varies, i.e. the width of the slit varies; reflection factors are
constant.
An assistant standing outside the window wall moves the slit boards to open the slits wider
(room 2-b or 3-b) or narrower (room 2-a or 3-a), see also figure 1.

Experiment 4:
Room 2-a Room 2-b
sidewalls ▓ plywood ▓ plywood
floor ▓ wood ▓ wood
width of the slit 25 cm 50 cm

Experiment 5:
Room 3-a Room 3-b
sidewalls ░ white ░ white
floor █ black █ black
width of the slit 25 cm 50 cm

RESULTS
Experiment 4. daylight
2-a 2-b
very small small mean large very large

Experiment 5. daylight
3-a 3-b
very small small mean large very large

Most of the participants noticed a difference in the size impression of the room depending on
the amount of daylight entering the room. In exp. 4 room 2-b, having a wider slit, appeared as
larger. It appeared as longer and higher; room 2-a, having a smaller slit, appeared as a little
wider but also as much shorter.
Similar results were noticed for exp. 5, which means that the enlarging effect of daylight can
occur also in rooms with a strong contrast between reflectances of room surfaces.

3.4 Electrical light varies; reflection factors are constant.

In exp. 4 and 5 with electrical light, the walls in the room 2-a and 3-a were lit by one wall-
washer, the walls in rooms 2-b and 3-b by two wall-washers (the PH lamps were switched off).
Experiment 4. el-light
2-a 2-b
very small small mean large very large

Experiment 5. el-light
3-a 3-b
very small small mean large very large

Exp. 4 and 5 with el-light resulted in even more apparent difference between rooms (a) and
rooms (b). Again the room lit strongly appeared as larger. Rooms (b) were evaluated as wider
and higher.

7
Barbara Matusiak, Size Impression of the Room

3.5 Daylight quantity varies, reflection factors vary.

Experiment 6:
Room 2 Room 3
sidewalls ▓ plywood ░ white
floor ▓ wood ▓ wood
width of the slit 50 cm 20-50 cm ?

In exp. 6 the participants were supposed to find out how wide the slit in the room 3 should be in
order to make rooms 2 and 3 look nearly similar in size. The assistant moved the slit boards in
the room 3 to change the width of the slits.
In exp. 6 the effort was made to find out if the lower reflectance of the walls could be
contradicted by stronger light. Additionally, the luminance was measured at the corresponding
points in those two rooms to find out if there is any correlation between the wall luminances and
the size impression of the room.
Nearly all participants agreed that it is possible to adjust the width of the slit in room 3 to
make room 2 and 3 appear equally large. The results varied a little with age. The adolescents
adjusted the width of the slit in room 3 to 25-30 cm. The luminance measured on the walls in
room 2 and 3 was nearly equal! The rest of the participants adjusted the width of the slit to 30-
35 cm. They needed 1,2-1,5 higher luminance on the walls made of plywood than on the white
walls to evaluate the two rooms as equally large. It seems that the human visual system
response a little more to the reflectances than to lighting evaluating the size impression of the
room.

3.6 Electrical light varies, reflection factors vary.

In exp. 6 with electrical light the walls were lit by one wall-washer/wall; the participants could
dim down the wall-washer in the room 3 to try to compensate for the lower reflectance in the
room 2 by a higher lighting level (the PH lamps were switched off).
Exp. 6 with el-light gave similar results as with daylight. Wall-washers in room 3 were
adjusted by participants to 50-70% of the level in the room 2. In other words, the observers
needed a luminance in the room 2 equal between 1,0-1,5 times the luminance in room 3.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

An interesting observation can be made analysing the distance between the room numbers at
the result tables. The difference in size impression between room 1 and 2 is clearly larger than
between 2 and 3, both for daylight and electrical light, e.g. exp. 1 and 2 for daylight. This can be
explained by the fact that the difference between the reflection factor of the white wall and
plywood wall is much lower than the difference between reflection factors of the plywood wall
and black wall. In this study the luminance is a linear function of the reflection factors. It is an
indication that our visual system evaluating the size of a room reacts to the luminance.
Generally, higher luminance of a room surface make it appear as more distant; the room
appears as larger. The luminance can be increased both by increasing the illuminance on the
surface and by increasing the reflection factor. This rule is true mostly for rooms with small
luminance contrasts between surfaces. Exp. 3 showed that if the luminance contrast in a room
is strong, especially at the edges between room surfaces, this effect disappears.
The significant difference was also noticed between the aesthetic impression of room 1
(from exp.1) depending on lighting type. In daylight the room was “sadder” than the other
rooms, but acceptable; in el-light the same room appeared as ugly and unpleasant. It confirms
that daylight has a very positive impact on the aesthetic value of architectural space.

REFERENCES
Arvesen Liv Come in: full-scale modeling. Bergen : Fagbokforlaget, c1995
Arvesen Liv Light as language EFA Conference (6 : 1996 : Wien)

8
 Barbara Matusiak, Size Impression of the Room

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank all participants for an enthusiastic and patient participation.
Author:
Name: Barbara Matusiak
Affiliation: associate Professor
Address: Alfred Getz vei 3, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway
Phone: +47 73 59 50 77
Fax: +47 73 59 53 88
e-mail: Barbara.Matusiak@ark.ntnu.no

View publication stats