1142812

review-article2022
LRT0010.1177/14771535221142812M Gkaintatzi-Masouti et al.Simulations of non-image-forming effects of light

Lighting Res. Technol. 2023; 55: 669–689

Simulations of non-image-forming
effects of light in building design: A
literature review
M Gkaintatzi-Masouti MSc , J van Duijnhoven PhD , and MPJ Aarts PhD
Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Received 23 September 2021; Revised 16 October 2022; Accepted 15 November 2022

Light affects many aspects of human physiology, through the non-image-forming (NIF)
pathway. To account for this pathway, lighting design simulation tools need to combine
several luminous and temporal factors to predict how architectural and lighting design
decisions affect eye-level light exposure. Based on a systematic literature review,
containing 55 journal and conference papers, the state-of-the-art towards implementing
lighting beyond vision in computer simulation workflows for building design is presented.
The review shows that, while interest in simulating the NIF effects of light on people is
increasing, there is not a common method to perform these simulations. Gaps were
identified in the currently available simulation workflows in relation to metrics, software
and approaches for predicting NIF effects of light in the context of the building design.

1. Introduction Moreover, the ipRGCs receive signals from rods

and cones5 and knowledge about the contribu-
Light entering the eyes not only influences visual
tion of each photoreceptor to the NIF system is
performance, but also affects many aspects of
growing.6,7
human physiology, through the non-image-form-
The NIF responses to light are influenced by
ing (NIF) system.1 The NIF responses include
luminous and temporal factors, specifically light
(but are not limited to) the regulation of the circa-
quantity, spectrum, directionality, timing, dura-
dian system, the suppression of melatonin pro-
tion and previous light history (Figure 1).8,9 Light
duction, and acute alertness.2 The photoreceptors
quantity was conventionally measured through
that typically instigate these responses are the
illuminance derived for photopic vision. The
intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells
effect of increased light quantity on people was
(ipRGCs), which are sending signals to the cen-
quantified through dose-response curves, where
tral pacemaker of the human circadian rhythms.3
dose is the amount of light at eye-level and
The ipRGCs have a peak spectral sensitivity at
response is often alertness, melatonin suppres-
the short wavelength bluish light at approxi-
sion or circadian phase shift.10,11 However, it is
mately 480 nm,4 different to the known photore-
argued that photopic illuminance is not an appro-
ceptors for vision (rods and three cone types).
priate metric for quantifying light considering its
NIF effects12 due to the differences in spectral
Address for correspondence: M Gkaintatzi-Masouti, Building sensitivities between the different photorecep-
Lighting Group, Building Physics and Services Unit, tors. Therefore, new metrics have been intro-
Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven University
of Technology, Groene Loper, Building 6, Eindhoven, 5600
duced that account for the spectral sensitivity of
MB, The Netherlands. the different photoreceptors. In regards to direc-
E-mail: m.gkaintatzi.masouti@tue.nl tionality (incidence of radiation to the retina),

© The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers 2022 10.1177/14771535221142812

https://doi.org/10.1177/14771535221142812
670   M Gkaintatzi-Masouti et al.

Quantity

Luminous factors
Spectrum

Directionality Acute (< a day)

NIF effects of light Circadian (roughly a day)

Timing
Temporal factors

Long-term (> a day)

Duration

Light history

Figure 1 The six luminous and temporal NIF light factors and the types of responses to them. The approximate duration
of the response is indicated in parenthesis. Acute responses happen immediately after the light exposure (e.g. melatonin
suppression). Circadian responses happen with a frequency of roughly a day (e.g. sleep-wake cycle). Long-term responses
happen due to circadian disturbances for a prolonged period of time (e.g. seasonal affective disorder). The figure combines
information from Khademagha et al.8 and Houser and Esposito18

there are indications that melatonin suppression
increases when light reaches the inferior (upper
field of view) or the nasal (field of view from the
nose side) retinal area.13,14 Timing implies that
light given at different phases of the circadian
clock can reduce or extend a person’s internal
day. Increasing the duration of light exposure
increases the biological effect,15 although this
relationship is non-linear, meaning that shorter
duration light stimuli are more efficient per min-
ute of exposure.16 Light history means that the
adaptation conditions before a bright light expo-
sure influence the biological response.17
The light exposure experienced by a person is
mostly defined by architectural daylighting and
artificial light sources, since people spend the
majority of their time indoors.19 Living in urban
environments is associated with decreased expo-
sure to daylight and increased light levels at night,
which delays the circadian clock.20 While the
main aim of building lighting design was previ-
ously to enhance visual performance, current
knowledge from photobiology indicates that a
new set of lighting criteria relevant for initiating
NIF responses to light needs to be introduced.
This adds complexity to architectural and lighting
design projects and requires novel design tools.
Lighting simulation software is often used to
assist decision-making in the architectural and
lighting design process.21,22 In response to the
knowledge of the NIF pathway, new simulation
workflows have been proposed to predict light in
buildings.23,24 These workflows should include
the six above-mentioned luminous and temporal
factors (Figure 1) that have been indicated as rel-
evant for the NIF responses to light. When using
lighting simulations to guide design decisions, it is
recommended to consider both image-forming
(IF) and NIF effects, a methodology now referred
to by the International Commission on Illumination
(CIE) as ‘integrative lighting’.25 Daylight and
electric light need to be considered separately as
well as combined. This requires software that can
model both light sources and can calculate eye-
level light stimulus as an output.
The results of simulations need to provide use-
ful information in the early and detailed phase of
the architectural and lighting design practice. In
the early design phase, it is important to take uncer-
tainty into consideration in lighting simulations26

Lighting Res. Technol. 2023; 55: 669–689

 Simulations of non-image-forming effects of light   671
Table 1 Keywords for the literature search in the databases Web of Science, Scopus and Science Direct
Connected by AND
Connected by OR light* “non image forming”
daylight* “non visual”
circadian
health
The asterisk * was used as a wildcard in Scopus and Web of Science. The quotation marks “ ” were used for search terms
that consist of more than one word.
and keep in mind that integrative lighting is a small
piece of the puzzle which needs to be balanced
with many other, sometimes contradicting, design
criteria. In the detailed design phase, user behav-
iour might need to be considered as suggested by
other studies.27 Different workflows are applicable
when zooming in to the detailed level of user
behaviour or when zooming out to the level of
building massing or urban design.
The aim of this paper is to identify the state-
of-the-art in simulation workflows for daylight-
ing and electric lighting design applicable for
quantifying eye-level light stimulus for predict-
ing NIF responses. Based on a systematic litera-
ture review, we present what are the gaps in the
currently available simulation workflows in the
context of building design.
2. Method
The literature review was conducted using four
groups of keywords: ‘light’, ‘non-image-form-
ing’, “simulation” and “building design”, and
alternative terms for these (Table 1) in Web of
Science, Scopus and Science Direct. The search
was performed within the title, abstract and key-
words and limited to publications after 2002,
since this is approximately the time when
ipRGCs were discovered.3,28 As alternatives to
“non-image-forming”, the terms “non-visual”,
“circadian” and the more general term “health”
were used. These terms were selected based on
simulation* “building design”
“architectural design”
“built environment”
“lighting design”
“design support”
“design process”
“design parameters”
the commonly used keywords in the publications
about this topic that we were familiar with prior
to conducting the literature review. Whereas
“non-image-forming” and “non-visual” are often
used interchangeably (as in CIE S 02629), “circa-
dian” refers to a sub-set of these responses
(Figure 1). Since the terminology around this
topic varies and in order to avoid missing papers
due to incomplete keywords, all eligible publica-
tions were forward-traced (by identifying the
articles that cite them after they have been pub-
lished). In addition, four relevant review papers
found through the initial search that investigated
the connection between architecture and NIF
effects of light8,30–32 were forward- and back-
ward-traced (by searching their references).
Eventually, 55 papers were included in the litera-
ture review (Figure 2). The final search was per-
formed on 26th August 2022.
The following elements were extracted from
each included publication:
•• if and how the previously described luminous
and temporal factors were considered.
•• which software was used.
•• which type of light sources were simulated
(electric light, daylight).
•• which metrics were used.
•• whether the workflow was suitable for simulat-
ing building massing models, rooms or users.
•• if IF effects of light (visual performance,
comfort and/or interest) were also included.
Lighting Res. Technol. 2023; 55: 669–689
672   M Gkaintatzi-Masouti et al.

Keywords Databases
“light”, “non image forming”, Scopus
“simula on, “building design” ScienceDirect
+ alterna ve terms Web of Science

220 papers

Duplicates removed

133 papers

Abstracts or full text screened

exclusion criteria:
• not about NIF effects of light
• not performing computer simula ons
• simula on methods not clearly described
• “light” used metaphorically
• “light” used with other meaning
• not in English
• conference papers if a journal ar cle from same
authors and topic existed

19 papers

Forward-traced
Scopus, Web of Science, Scholar

52 papers

Forward- & backward-traced reviews

Scopus, Web of Science, Scholar + their references

55 papers

Figure 2 Search methodology. “Forward-traced” refers to identifying the articles that cite a paper after it has been published.
“Backward-traced” refers to searching the references of an article

3. Results Pechacek et al.66 combined light quantity, spec-

A summary of the analysed papers is presented in
Table 2. Figure 3 shows the number of publica-
tions over the years.
3.1 Luminous and temporal factors
Novel methodologies to simulate the effects
of light on health and alertness were proposed.
trum and timing in a preliminary simulation
workflow to calculate a static “circadian poten-
tial” provided by daylight in a space. Andersen
et al.23 and Mardaljevic et al.69 further developed
that using photobiology knowledge about the
time-dependent effect of light and they defined a
lower and upper bound for the possibility that a
given light dose will have an effect on people.

Lighting Res. Technol. 2023; 55: 669–689

 Table 2 Summary of simulation methods in the analysed papers. The inclusion (or not) of the luminous and temporal factors relevant for NIF effects is
denoted with “Yes” (or “No”). Quantity of light is not presented as a separate column because it was included in all reviewed publications (although by
different metrics)

Study Simulated Spectrum Spectrum Directionality Duration Timing History Software NIF metric IF factors Simulation
light source (source) (materials) level

Jakubiec and Alight33 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes ALFA mel. irrad., No
alertness, mel.
sup., phase shift*
Alight and Jakubiec34 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes ALFA, Lark, mel. irrad., EML, No
Radiance M/P, nvRD,
alertness, mel.
sup., phase shift*
Abboushi and Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Honeybee, ALFA EML No
Safranek35
Danell et al.36 Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Radiance EML, nvRD No
Pierson et al.37 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Lark mel. EDI, nvRD No
Amundadottir et al.38 Yes No No Yes No Yes Radiance nvRD Vis. interest
Vis. comfort
Saiedlue et al.39 Yes Yes No No Yes No ALFA EML Vis. perform.
Vis. comfort
Altenberg Vaz and Yes Yes No No Yes No ALFA EML Vis. perform.
Inanici40 Vis. comfort
Potocnik and Kosir41 Yes Yes No No Yes No ALFA EML, CS Vis. perform.
Vis. comfort
Elsayed and Rakha42 Yes Yes No Yes No No ALFA EML Vis. perform.
Vis. comfort
Zeng et al.43 Yes Yes No No Yes No Daysim EML Vis. perform.
Acosta et al.44 Yes No No Yes Yes No Daysim CS Vis. comfort
Bellia et al.45 Yes Yes No No** Yes No Daysim CS Vis. perform.
Salamati et al.46 Yes Yes No No Yes No ALFA EML, M/P Vis. comfort
Rockcastle et al.47 Yes No No Yes No Yes DIVA nvRD Vis. perform.
Vis. comfort
Vis. interest
Aguilar-Carrasco et al.48 Yes Yes No No Yes No DIALux, Daylight CS Vis. perform.
Visualizer
Zauner and Plishcke49 Yes Yes No No Yes No Relux mel. EDI Vis. perform.
Safranek et al.50 Yes Yes No No** Yes No ALFA EML, CS Vis. perform.

(Continued)

Lighting Res. Technol. 2023; 55: 669–689

Simulations of non-image-forming effects of light   673
 Table 2 (Continued)

Study Simulated Spectrum Spectrum Directionality Duration Timing History Software NIF metric IF factors Simulation
light source (source) (materials) level

Brennan and Collins51 Yes Yes No No Yes No Daysim, EML No

Radiance, Lark
Konis52 Yes Yes No No** Yes No Lark EML No
Potocnik et al.53 Yes Yes No Yes No No ALFA CS No
Acosta et al.54 Yes Yes No No Yes No Daysim CS No
Lee and Boubekri55 Yes No No Yes Yes No DIVA illum. No
Khademagha et al.56 Yes Yes No No No No Radiance effect. irrad. Vis. perform.
Vis. comfort

Lighting Res. Technol. 2023; 55: 669–689

Yun et al.57 Yes No No No Yes No Honeybee EML Vis. perform.
Vis. comfort
674   M Gkaintatzi-Masouti et al.

Andersen et al.58 Yes No No Yes No No Lightsolve nvRD**** Vis. interest

Inanici et al.59 Yes Yes No No No No Radiance circ. lum., circ. Vis. perform.
illum.
Ewing et al.60 Yes Yes No No No No Radiance 5 α-opic irrad. Vis. perform.
Potocnik and Kosir61 Yes Yes No No No No ALFA EML, CS Vis. comfort
Danell et al.62 Yes Yes No No No No ALFA EML Vis. perform.
Hosseini and Yes Yes No No No No ALFA EML Vis. perform
Sheikhansari63 Vis. comfort
Song et al.64 Yes No No No** Yes No*** Honeybee EML Vis. perform.
Inanici et al.65 Yes No No No Yes No ALFA, Lark, EML Vis. perform. -
Radiance
Pechacek et al.66 Yes No No No Yes No Daysim, Relux circ. potential No
Geisler-Moroder and Yes Yes No No No No Radiance CAF No
Dür67
Amundadottir et al.68 Yes No No Yes No No Daysim nvRD**** No
Mardaljevic et al.69 Yes No No No Yes No Radiance circ. potential No
Konis70 Yes No No No** Yes No*** Honeybee EML No
Kim et al.71 Yes Yes No No No No CQAT CAF, CCT No
Kim et al.72 Yes Yes No No No No CQAT CAF, CCT No
Amirazar et al.73 Yes No No No** Yes No DIVA EML No
Balakrishnan and Yes Yes No No No No ALFA, Lark, spect. irrad.***** No -
Jakubiec74 Radiance
Busatto et al.75 Yes No No No Yes No Radiance CAF, CS, EML No
Maskarenj et al.76 Yes No No No Yes No OWL mel. EDI, mel. No -
irrad., CS

(Continued)
 Table 2 (Continued)

Study Simulated Spectrum Spectrum Directionality Duration Timing History Software NIF metric IF factors Simulation
light source (source) (materials) level

He et al.77 Yes Yes No No No No ALFA EML, CS, illum., No

M/P
Pierson et al.78 Yes Yes No No No No ALFA, Lark, spect. irrad.***** No
Radiance
Pierson et al.79 Yes Yes No No No No ALFA, Lark, spect. irrad.***** No
Radiance
Dai et al.80 Yes No No No No No Radiance EML, CS Vis. perform.
Sanchez-Cano and Yes No No No No No DIALux mel. EDI, EML, Vis. perform.
Aporta81 CS
Ezpeleta et al.82 Yes No No No No No DIALux EML, mel. EDI Vis. perform.
Andersen et al.83 Yes No No No No No Daysim illum. No
Khademagha et al.84 No No Yes No No No Radiance lum. No
Yao et al.85 Yes No No No No No Honeybee CS No
Lee and Boubekri86 No No No No Yes No Unknown illum. No
Cai et al.87 No No No No No No Daysim illum. No
Summary (number of ALFA 18 EML 25
papers)
Radiance 16 CS 14
Daysim 9 nvRD 7
Lark 8 mel.EDI 5 Vis. perform. 21 48
47 Honeybee 5 CAF 4 Vis. comfort 12 4
22 52 31 1 13 28 6 Others 13 Others 29 Vis. interest 3 3

: daylight; : electric light; : building level; : room level; : user level (see Figure 4 for definition); EML: Equivalent Melanopic Lux; CS: Circadian
Stimulus; nvRD: non-visual Direct Response; M/P: Melanopic/Photopic ratio; CAF: Circadian Action Factor; CCT: Correlated Colour Temperature; mel. EDI:
melanopic Equivalent Daylight Illuminance; effect.: effective; irrad.: irradiance; circ: circadian; illum.: illuminance; lum.: luminance; spect.: spectral; mel. sup.:
melatonin suppression; CQAT: Colour Quality Assessment Tool.
*By using the Postnova et al.88 and Tekieh et al.89 models to predict Karolinska Sleepiness Scale, mean reaction time on a task and melatonin concentration.
**But yearly duration or frequency is used.
***Although history is mentioned, it can be understood as weekly frequency.
****Earlier version of the nvRD model.
*****Metric not used as a NIF indicator, but to quantify spectral accuracy.

Lighting Res. Technol. 2023; 55: 669–689

Simulations of non-image-forming effects of light   675
676   M Gkaintatzi-Masouti et al.
Figure 3 Number of publications in the topic of simulations of NIF effects of light in building design over the years
They proposed to divide the day into three inter-
vals: (1) early to mid-morning (06.00–10.00),
when light advances the circadian phase, (2)
mid-morning to early evening (10.00–18.00),
when light can affect alertness, and (3) night-
time (18.00–06.00), when light exposure that
might trigger NIF responses is to be avoided.
Amundadottir et al.38 incorporated a dynamic
mathematical model that additionally accounts
for light duration and history to calculate the
effect of a light exposure into a simulation frame-
work. Their framework combined light quantity,
spectrum, duration and history in a single model
that aims to translate light stimulus to human
response.
Geisler-Moroder and Dür67 used the RGB
channels from renderings with the Radiance
software90 to estimate the effect of light on the
suppression of melatonin, therefore introducing
low resolution (three channel) spectral informa-
tion of sources and materials into simulations.
Spectral information was also included by per-
forming simulations of photometric quantities
and post-processing the results based on the
spectral power distribution (SPD) of the light
Lighting Res. Technol. 2023; 55: 669–689
source.35,36,38,44,47,66,68–70,73,75,80–83,85 This method
disregards that the SPD that reaches the eye is
modified by the spectral properties of materials,
which might be a reasonable assumption in neu-
trally coloured spaces. For non-neutrally col-
oured spaces, a simplified approach was to
multiply the SPD of the light sources with the
spectral reflectance of the materials and use this
to post-process photometric results.45,48,54 This
approach, however, has not been validated
against measurements yet. Instead of post-pro-
cessing the results, a pre-processing method was
proposed by Zauner and Plischke.49 Their method
consists of creating a “melanopic simulation
model” where the luminous flux of the lumi-
naires and the luminous reflectance of materials
are modified to a melanopic equivalent. The sim-
ulation result is directly interpretable in terms of
melanopic quantities. One benefit of this method
is that it can be applied to conventional lighting
simulation software.
The duration of light exposure was either con-
sidered statically, assuming that a fixed duration
of exposure of a few hours a day (1–5 hours) is
enough to stimulate the NIF system,42,44,55 or
 Simulations of non-image-forming effects of light   677
dynamically, considering that short duration light
exposures are more effective than long ones, and
intermittent light patterns are more effective than
continuous per minute of exposure.32,36,38,47,58,68
In addition, the directionality of light being
projected on the retina of the eye was investi-
gated by Khademagha et al.84 that used render-
ings to estimate the effect of room design
parameters by applying masks corresponding to
the upper and lower field of view.
3.2 Software
Since the conventional lighting simulation soft-
ware simplifies the visible spectrum into a three-
dimensional RGB colour space, new spectral
simulation software has been developed to pro-
cess the spectral properties of light sources and
materials. Inanici et al.59 implemented a method-
ology to increase the spectral resolution of
Radiance simulations to more than three channels.
They used an n-step algorithm that divides the vis-
ible spectrum in n wavebands, where increasing
the n increases the spectral resolution.91,92 Since
Radiance is a 3-channel (RGB) renderer, in order
to implement, for example, a 9-step algorithm,
three individual simulations need to be combined.
Each of these three simulations accounts for a dif-
ferent part of the visible spectrum. The methodol-
ogy by Inanici was translated into the Lark spectral
lighting simulation tool.93
Lark and ALFA94 are two publicly available
simulation tools that were developed for simula-
tions of the NIF effects of light. Their innovation,
in comparison to conventional simulation tools, is
that the visible spectrum is divided into more than
three channels (nine for Lark and 81 for ALFA)
and they directly calculate metrics for quantify-
ing NIF effects of light. Both tools can perform
static point-in-time simulations. To expand their
use to dynamic annual simulations, Jakubiec and
Alight33,34 implemented a method that uses 56
simulation timesteps throughout the year to inter-
polate to annual results (Lightsolve method95).
The version 2.0 of Lark96 also offers annual
simulation using the Daylight Coefficient method
for dynamic daylighting simulations.97 However,
one limitation is that it assumes a constant SPD
for the entire simulation period. This can be
overcome only with the use of a model that cal-
culates annual SPDs from available weather
data.65 The recently developed OWL tool76 is a
step towards overcoming this limitation. OWL
can be used to estimate the SPD of the sky dome
using available weather data as input. It imple-
ments spatially and spectrally resolved sky mod-
els98 that use the luminance of different patches
of the sky to calculate SPD. Lark and OWL are
both developed for the Grasshopper for Rhino
environment and can potentially be combined.
A few studies were performed to validate the
accuracy of these tools. One study found that
Lark calculates spectral irradiance with most
errors within a ±20% range in a neutrally col-
oured space under daylight.78 The authors noted
a reproducibility error in ALFA, unresolved at the
time of their study. It was also shown that under
clear sky conditions ALFA tends to overestimate
the irradiance,99 even though the spectral charac-
teristics are well represented.74 For electric light
simulations, the errors in spectral irradiance were
larger than the ±20% range, with ALFA being
more accurate due to the higher spectral resolu-
tion.79 However, when the spectral irradiance
was used to calculate relevant NIF metrics, these
differences vanished and most errors of both
tools were within the ±20% range.99
Another in-house spectral simulation software
for electric light was developed by Kim et al.71
called Colour Quality Assessment Tool (CQAT),
but it is limited to a simple geometry and diffuse
materials.
3.3 Light sources
Out of the 55 papers, 33 studied only daylight,
eight studied only electric light and 14 both
daylight and electric light. Different methods to
Lighting Res. Technol. 2023; 55: 669–689
678   M Gkaintatzi-Masouti et al.
model the spectra of direct sunlight and diffuse
skylight were adopted in the reviewed papers.
Often, the assumption was made that the entire
sky dome can be uniformly represented by a
CIE standard illuminant (e.g. D65).44,67,68,85
Other approaches were to use standard illumi-
nants based on the window orientation of the
simulated space,48,64,66,83 differentiating between
the spectrum of the direct and diffuse contribu-
tion,70 or between overcast and clear sky condi-
tions.48,69 Bellia et al.45 modelled typical
average SPDs for cities located in the north,
centre and south of Europe based on the per-
centage of overcast skies in each location (close
to D50 for northern locations, close to D65 for
middle locations and more blue than D65 in
southern locations).
In ALFA the spectrum of the sun and the sky is
generated from the library libRadTran,100 using a
US mid-latitude (45°N) summer atmospheric
profile.74 In Lark, the sun is neutrally coloured
and the sky is uniformly coloured by a user
selected SPD. In OWL, as mentioned, the SPD is
calculated from available weather data. For this
calculation, the luminance of different patches of
the skydome is converted to Correlated Colour
Temperature (CCT) using a model.98 The CCT of
each patch is then converted to SPD using the
CIE 015 standard101 and is finally aggregated
over the skydome. All three (ALFA, Lark and
OWL) sky models have some limitations. A com-
parison of the ALFA-generated skies with meas-
ured data showed that ALFA did not show the
wide variability in CCT that was observed in the
measurements.65 For Lark, the neutral sun
assumption introduced errors in CCT calculation
up to 41% when modelling clear skies (even
though the error in NIF metrics was up to 17%).65
In contrast, the luminance to CCT models of
OWL correspond well with measured CCT under
clear skies.98 However, OWL applies these clear
sky models for all sky types and does not dis-
criminate between clear, intermediate and over-
cast skies.
Lighting Res. Technol. 2023; 55: 669–689
3.4 Metrics
A variety of metrics was found in the literature
to quantify the eye-level light stimulus (Table 2).
The most used metrics were the Equivalent
Melanopic Lux (EML) and the Circadian Stimulus
(CS). EML was proposed by the building certifi-
cation institute WELL102 based on the ipRGC
spectral sensitivity curves from Lucas et al.103
CS was introduced by Rea et al.104 based on a
model for nocturnal melatonin suppression, and
was later adopted by the Underwriters Laboratory
(UL) design guideline 24 480.105 Melanopic
Equivalent Daylight Illuminance (EDI), one of
the five α-opic EDI metrics recommended by the
CIE,29 was used in five of the publications.81
Four (relatively older) publications used the
Circadian Action Factor (CAF), a metric pro-
posed by Gall and Bieske106 as a ratio of circa-
dian weighted and photometric quantities. Only
photopic quantities (luminance, illuminance and
annual metrics derived from these) were used in
five publications.
A few papers used metrics that combine lumi-
nous and temporal factors to estimate a human
response. Specifically, a dynamic metric called
the “non-visual Direct Response” (nvRD) model
that was developed by Amundadottir24 was used
in seven papers. The model takes as input a time
series of eye-level light stimuli and translates it to
a predicted human alerting response. The mathe-
matical models of Postnova et al.88 and Tekieh
et al.89 to predict alertness, phase shift and mela-
tonin suppression were used in two papers.33,34
These models are based on the balance between
homeostatic and circadian systems. The homeo-
static system increases while a person is awake
and the circadian system is defined by sleep his-
tory and dynamic light stimuli.
3.5 Modelling buildings, rooms and users
During early-stage daylight design, simula-
tion workflows can go beyond modelling indi-
vidual rooms, considering that parameters such
as interior partitions or even specific materials
 Simulations of non-image-forming effects of light   679

Building level

low
Shape of the building, massing model
Early-stage daylight
and placement within context

Level of detail
simulaons
Room level
Room and window dimensions,
surface properes, furniture, shading
Detailed daylight and
User level electric light
high

User movement and gaze behavior simulaons

Figure 4 Building, room and user level simulation workflows. Building level is more suitable for early-stage architectural
daylighting design, while room and user level apply better to detailed daylighting and electric lighting simulations

might be unknown (here referred to as “building
level”, Figure 4). The significance of using light-
ing simulations during this stage is clear, since
decisions about the shape of the building and its
relationship with the context largely affect the
light that occupants will be exposed to, espe-
cially in dense urban contexts.107 For this pur-
pose, Konis52 developed a workflow to compare
alternative building form options during early-
stage design. His method takes as input a build-
ing massing model, it automatically divides it
into floors, and evaluates an annual NIF potential
of the entire building using Lark. A percentage of
“circadian effective” zone is calculated for the
building, which is the area where daylight over
the year is considered sufficient for circadian
entrainment (when EML exceeds a threshold for
a number of hours).70 Additionally, he proposed
annual climate-based NIF daylight metrics70 and
suggested a grade-based system to evaluate
spaces based on these metrics. These building-
level simulations are suitable for early-stage day-
lighting design, where the goal is not to prove
compliance with a specific standard but rather to
do relative comparisons of design options and
acquire general guiding directions.
Modelling of individual rooms is usually a
next step of the design process, when space
dimensions, window typology, material proper-
ties, layouts and electric lighting are explored
(here referred to as “room level”, Figure 4). Most
of the publications focused on the room level of
detail. For the highest level of detail, user-
focused simulations that account for occupant
movement within a space and gaze behaviour
can be included (here referred to as “user level”,
Figure 4). The default assumption in simulations
is to model users by selecting a position in the
room where they are likely sitting (e.g. a desk), a
height from the floor to represent the eye-level
(often 1.2 m for a sitting person) and one or mul-
tiple vectors to indicate their static view direc-
tion. However, since occupants do not always
stay at their desks looking towards a fixed direc-
tion, models indicating occupants’ movement
within a space are useful in order to investigate
their eye-level light stimulus. Since the eye-level
light exposure is essential for evaluating a space
based on its potential to induce NIF effects, the
user level of detail can be considered as a
baseline.
These user behaviour aspects were included in
four publications. Specifically, in two publica-
tions, occupants were assumed to move ran-
domly between selected zones.68,83 In a paper
that investigated light exposure in offices,36
occupant behaviour profiles were defined based
on their role in the office. The occupant profiles
determined when and how much time a person
would spend at their desk, in a meeting room, or
in other spaces in the office. Gaze behaviour was
included in a paper that proposed a human-cen-
tred approach to daylighting simulations,108
applying a gaze responsive model that predicts

Lighting Res. Technol. 2023; 55: 669–689

680   M Gkaintatzi-Masouti et al.
eye movements based on luminance contrasts in
the field-of-view.109 Even though the user level
approach presents practical difficulties, as it
requires assumptions of how people move
through a space, it needs further investigation to
elaborate on the errors that arise from not consid-
ering it.
3.6 Integration of IF and NIF criteria
IF and NIF can to some extent be predicted
with existing simulation software together or
separately, and their combination was a topic of
interest for almost half of the publications in this
review. Andersen et al.58 combined NIF potential
with visual interest in an integrated simulation
workflow. Amundadottir et al.38 added glare con-
siderations to that and demonstrated that NIF
potential, visual interest and glare might be con-
tradictory design goals. They indicated that a
trade-off might be necessary depending on the
space and occupant needs, for example by prior-
itizing visual comfort and NIF potential in spaces
where occupants spend longer periods of time
whereas visual interest in spaces where the dura-
tion of stay is shorter.
Rockcastle et al.47 took that approach one step
further and proposed a scoring method to balance
visual, perceptual and NIF criteria. Their analy-
sis demonstrated that evaluating a space based on
horizontal illuminance could lead to different
design decisions compared to designing based on
eye-level light metrics (e.g. Daylight Glare
Probability or nvRD), suggesting that horizontal
and eye-level metrics should be considered
together. Several studies explored the effect of
building design parameters on IF and NIF crite-
ria,39,40,41,44,46,49,56,61,63,80,81 showing that an inte-
grated design approach is needed to find the right
balance between both. This underlines the need
for having standards and guidelines that include
these different aspects together and suggest
what the trade-offs should be for various design
applications. Though the daylight standard EN
17037110 includes considerations for daylight
Lighting Res. Technol. 2023; 55: 669–689
provision, sunlight exposure, glare and view, it
notably leaves out recommendations for NIF
effects. The revised lighting standard EN 12464-
1111 highlights the importance of daylight and the
need for variation based on time of the day but
does not provide concrete recommendations for
NIF effects. Yet, the integration of all relevant
criteria in industry standards might push the
development of new simulation software that
facilitates the incorporation in design practice.
4. Discussion
This review demonstrated that research interest in
modelling the NIF effects of light on people
within buildings is increasing (Figure 3). Studies
focused on the development and validation of
simulation workflows to investigate the circadian
and acute responses to light. Some of the most
recent studies used these workflows to investi-
gate how the various design parameters affect the
NIF responses and attempted to offer preliminary
advice to designers. In this section we present the
gaps in the available simulation workflows.
4.1 Gaps in metrics
In relation to metrics, a consensus is yet to be
reached. The most commonly used metrics were
EML and CS. CIE has defined five α-opic EDI
metrics to describe light, based on the sensitivities
of the five ocular photoreceptors and it is argued
that melanopic EDI is a good predictor of circa-
dian and acute light responses.112,113 Melanopic
EDI can be calculated from EML with a simple
multiplication factor (mel. EDI = 0.91 × EML). A
recent publication by a consortium of 18 experts
in the field of light and health recommends for
healthy, daytime working adults, to provide a ver-
tical melanopic EDI of minimal 250 lx at eye level
during daytime. For the evening this should be
less than 10 lx and less than 1 lx for sleeping envi-
ronments.114 It should be noted that the recom-
mendations are based on data from mostly
night-time laboratory studies.
 Simulations of non-image-forming effects of light   681
Beyond the disputed nature of the metrics, a
difficulty also lies in the fact that light quantities
alone cannot comprehensively be used for the
prediction of NIF responses because they do not
include temporal dynamics. Human response
metrics need to include luminous and temporal
parameters together, since a single light quantity
cannot predict the magnitude of a response with-
out considerations for timing, duration and previ-
ous light history. The response metrics proposed
by Amundadottir (nvRD),24 Postnova et al.88 and
Tekieh et al.89 are a step towards that direction,
but their applicability under a variety of (day)
light conditions needs to be tested. One study
that compared the nvRD model with daytime
alertness under daylight showed that there is a
moderate correlation, but the model still has
large prediction errors.115 This means that recali-
bration of this model is necessary, especially as
we learn more about the contribution of daylight
to the various effects on people.116
4.2 Gaps in software
The development of the ALFA, Lark and OWL
software make spectrally resolved simulations
more accessible, but they still have their limita-
tions. All tools can perform static point-in-time
simulations. Yet, dynamic simulations are neces-
sary to enable the calculation of human response
metrics that account for both luminous and tem-
poral factors. The current tools can do that to
some extent. Interpolating selected point-in-time
results to get an annual result is possible using
the Lightsolve method, but it is not directly
implemented in ALFA, Lark or OWL. The Lark
version 2.096 can directly perform dynamic simu-
lations, but with the assumption of a constant
yearly SPD.
This assumption of a constant SPD of a selected
standard CIE illuminant was often made in the lit-
erature. Is it a reasonable simplification or is it
important to dynamically vary the SPD of day-
light? Inanici et al.65 argue that we do not model
annual sky luminance based on an average, so we
should not model the sky spectrum based on an
average as well. Indeed, Diakite-Kortlever and
Knoop98 tested the accuracy of using the CIE D65
illuminant to predict melanopic content outdoors.
They found that it can represent sky SPD reason-
ably well under overcast sky conditions, but for
clear skies it underestimates the melanopic con-
tent. They claim that for clear skies spectral infor-
mation of each patch of the sky dome is needed
for accurate daylight simulations. In contrast,
Pierson et al.99 found that the assumption of a con-
stant D65 was reasonably accurate in simulating
melanopic EDI indoors in a variety of sky condi-
tions (clear, hazy, overcast, rainy). They note that,
in the conditions that they tested, accurately simu-
lating quantity of light (irradiance) had a larger
impact to the result than accurately simulating
spectrum. It is though difficult to claim that this is
generalizable for other locations and during all
times of the day and year. We need further com-
parisons of simulations with measurements from
different locations, especially indoors, to know
how the varying sky colour affects the simulation
accuracy in terms of both quantity and spectrum.
A different issue is that these software tools
might be difficult to access due to lack of user-
friendliness or cost. Lark and OWL require
familiarity with Rhino, Grasshopper and possi-
bly basic programming knowledge (if modifica-
tions to the basic code need to be made). ALFA is
easier to use, since the only prerequisite is the
ability to use Rhino; however, it is a commer-
cial licensed software. In addition, since Rhino
(which is also a commercial software) might not
be the default CAD program for all lighting and
architectural designers, the use of such plugins
is restricted. Simulation methods with pre- or
post-processing steps49,81 can also be used to cal-
culate NIF metrics using freely available sim-
pler tools (like DIALux117 or Relux118), but with
limited spectral resolution and/or without
accounting for the materials’ spectral reflec-
tance. Moreover, the additional steps make the
method more prone to user error.
Lighting Res. Technol. 2023; 55: 669–689
682   M Gkaintatzi-Masouti et al.
4.3 Gaps in approaches for predicting
NIF effects
In Table 2 one can see that none of the reviewed
papers included all six relevant luminous and
temporal parameters. This is probably because
the exact relationship between light quantity,
spectral composition, directionality, timing, dura-
tion, history and specific human responses still
needs to be established,2 which is an issue beyond
simulation software and method. The two least
frequently used factors relevant for NIF responses
in lighting simulation studies are light history and
directionality. Further research into these param-
eters should provide information on how to
implement them in simulation studies.
Finally, a significant issue when aiming to
predict the effects of light on people by using
simulation, is that a real person’s complex behav-
iour in a space needs to be represented using a
limited number of static positions and view
directions. For the vast majority of the indoor
simulation papers examined, the authors used a
sensor in the vertical plane to model light
received at the eye (with the exception of two
papers by Lee and Boubekri55,86 that used light
on a horizontal plane as a proxy for that received
at the eye). Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that
there is widespread acceptance amongst research-
ers that light prediction on the horizontal plane is
not sufficient to predict the light dose received at
peoples’ eyes. Nevertheless, in reality, gaze
direction of building occupants in a static posi-
tion (e.g. seated at a desk) will vary in both azi-
muth (i.e. compass direction) and altitude (i.e.
directed above or below the horizon) to a degree
that is difficult to characterize.119,120 Accordingly,
the uncertainty in received light dose due to gaze
behaviour is presently unknown. Furthermore,
depending on their schedule and/or patterns of
work, a person may spend considerable periods
of the day not at their notional workstation.
Simulation results do indeed support the hypoth-
esis that the occupants’ view direction and their
distance from window significantly affects the
Lighting Res. Technol. 2023; 55: 669–689
magnitude of the light dose they receive.40,41,84
This suggests that further investigations into how
people move in spaces and change their view
direction could provide more reliable input for
simulations.
4. Conclusion
This paper presented a systematic literature
review of 55 journal and conference papers,
aiming to identify the state-of-the-art and the
gaps in simulation workflows for predicting
NIF effects of light. In the introduction of this
paper, we presented the relevant factors for sim-
ulating eye-level light stimulus, needed for pre-
dicting NIF responses. In the results section, we
identified which of these factors are already
included in simulation workflows and what
methods were applied. In the discussion section
we distinguished gaps in relation to metrics,
software and approaches for predicting NIF
light effects.
There are still many uncertainties about the
mechanism with which light affects the range of
biological responses, but with increasing research
on these we will be able to move from light met-
rics (e.g. melanopic EDI) to human response
metrics (e.g. predicted alertness or melatonin
suppression). Temporally dynamic simulations
are needed for this to be possible in practice.
These are partly implemented in the available
spectral simulation software, but improvements
are needed especially to the spectral sky and sun
models. Nonetheless, it is not clear how detailed
these models need to be to accurately predict the
quantity and spectrum of light indoors.
It is also unknown if light quantities incident
on static vertical vectors are a good predictor of
the actual light dose that a person receives.
People’s dynamic behaviour in indoor environ-
ments in relation to their light exposure requires
further investigation. It is understandable that
this adds complexities to the task of optimizing
lighting to support human needs, but only by
 Simulations of non-image-forming effects of light   683
exploring these complexities we can break them
down to simple design guidelines.
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank professor John Mardaljevic
for reading the manuscript and providing his
feedback.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following finan-
cial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article: The authors received funding
from the European Training Network LIGHTCAP
(project number 860613) under the Marie Skłodowska-
Curie actions framework H2020-MSCA-ITN-2019
for the research and publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
M Gkaintatzi-Masouti https://orcid.org/0000-
0003-4864-5556
J van Duijnhoven https://orcid.org/0000-0003-
1145-7033
MPJ Aarts https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1562-2489
References
1 Boyce PR. Human Factors in Lighting, 3rd
edition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2014.
2 Vetter C, Pattison PM, Houser K, Herf M,
Phillips AJK, Wright KP, et al. A review
of human physiological responses to light:
implications for the development of integrative
lighting solutions. LEUKOS 2021; 18: 387–414.
3 Hattar S, Liao HW, Takao M, Berson DM, Yau
KW. Melanopsin-containing retinal ganglion
cells: architecture, projections, and intrinsic
photosensitivity. Science 2002; 295: 1065–
1070.
4 Zaidi FH, Hull JT, Peirson SNN, Wulff
K, Aeschbach D, Gooley JJ, et al. Short-
wavelength light sensitivity of circadian,
pupillary, and visual awareness in humans
lacking an outer retina. Current Biology 2007;
17: 2122–2128.
5 Do MTH. Melanopsin and the intrinsically
photosensitive retinal ganglion cells: biophysics
to behavior. Neuron 2019; 104: 205–226.
6 Gooley JJ, Rajaratnam SMW, Brainard GC,
Kronauer RE, Czeisler CA, Lockley SW.
Spectral responses of the human circadian
system depend on the irradiance and duration
of exposure to light. Science Translational
Medicine 2010; 2: 31–33.
7 Rüger M, Gordijn MCM, Beersma DGM,
De Vries B, Daan S. Time-of-day-dependent
effects of bright light exposure on human
psychophysiology: comparison of daytime
and nighttime exposure. American Journal
of Physiology - Regulatory Integrative and
Comparative Physiology 2006; 290: 1413–1420.
8 Khademagha P, Aries MBC, Rosemann
ALP, van Loenen EJ. Implementing non-
image-forming effects of light in the built
environment: a review on what we need.
Building and Environment 2016; 108: 263–272.
9 Rea MS, Figueiro MG, Bullough JD. Circadian
photobiology: an emerging framework for
lighting practice and research. Lighting
Research and Technology 2002; 34: 177–187.
10 Cajochen C, Zeitzer JM, Czeisler CA, Dijk DJ.
Dose-response relationship for light intensity
and ocular and electroencephalographic
correlates of human alertness. Behavioural
Brain Research 2000; 115: 75–83.
11 Zeitzer JM, Dijk DJ, Kronauer RE, Brown EN,
Czeisler CA. Sensitivity of the human circadian
pacemaker to nocturnal light: melatonin
phase resetting and suppression. Journal of
Physiology 2000; 526: 695–702.
12 Spitschan M, Stefani O, Blattner P, Gronfier
C, Lockley S, Lucas R. How to report light
exposure in human chronobiology and sleep
research experiments. Clocks and Sleep 2019;
1: 280–289.
13 Khademagha P, Aries M, Rosemann A, Loenen
E Van. Why directionality is an important light
factor for human health to consider in lighting
design? International Journal of Sustainable
Lighting 2016; 18: 3–8.
Lighting Res. Technol. 2023; 55: 669–689
684   M Gkaintatzi-Masouti et al.
14 Khademagha P, Aries MBC, Rosemann ALP,
Van Loenen EJ. A multidirectional spectral
measurement method and instrument to
investigate non-image-forming effects of light.
Measurement Science and Technology 2018;
29: 8.
15 Dewan K, Benloucif S, Reid K, Wolfe LF, Zee
PC. Light-induced changes of the circadian
clock of humans: increasing duration is more
effective than increasing light intensity. Sleep
2011; 34: 593–599.
16 Chang AM, Santhi N, St Hilaire M, Gronfier
C, Bradstreet DS, Duffy JF, et al. Human
responses to bright light of different durations.
Journal of Physiology 2012; 590: 3103–3112.
17 Chang AM, Scheer FAJL, Czeisler CA. The
human circadian system adapts to prior photic
history. Journal of Physiology 2011; 589:
1095–1102.
18 Houser KW, Esposito T. Human-centric
lighting: foundational considerations and
a five-step design process. Frontiers in
Neurology 2021; 12: 630553.
19 Klepeis NE, Nelson WC, Ott WR, Robinson
JP, Tsang AM, Switzer P, et al. The National
Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS):
a resource for assessing exposure to
environmental pollutants. Journal of Exposure
Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology
2001; 11: 231–252.
20 Wright KP, McHill AW, Birks BR, Griffin
BR, Rusterholz T, Chinoy ED. Entrainment
of the human circadian clock to the natural
light-dark cycle. Current Biology 2013; 23:
1554–1558.
21 Ochoa CE, Aries MBCC, Hensen JLMM. State
of the art in lighting simulation for building
science: a literature review. Journal of Building
Performance Simulation 2012; 5: 209–233.
22 Ayoub M. 100 years of daylighting: a
chronological review of daylight prediction and
calculation methods. Solar Energy 2019; 194:
360–390.
23 Andersen M, Mardaljevic J, Lockley SW. A
framework for predicting the non-visual effects
of daylight-part I: photobiology-based model.
Lighting Research and Technology 2012; 44:
37–53.
Lighting Res. Technol. 2023; 55: 669–689
24 Amundadottir ML. Light-driven model for
identifying indicators of non-visual health
potential in the built environment. PhD
Dissertation, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de
Lausanne, Switzerland, 2016.
25 International Commission on Illumination.
Position Statement on Non-Visual Effects of
Light: Recommending Proper Light at the
Proper Time. Vienna: CIE, 2019.
26 Østergård T, Jensen RL, Maagaard SE.
Building simulations supporting decision
making in early design - a review. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2016; 61:
187–201.
27 van Duijnhoven J, Aarts MPJ, Kort HSM.
Personal lighting conditions of office workers:
an exploratory field study. Lighting Research
and Technology 2021; 53: 285–310.
28 Berson DM, Dunn FA, Takao M.
Phototransduction by retinal ganglion cells
that set the circadian clock. Science 2002; 295:
1070–1073.
29 International Commission on Illumination.
System for Metrology of Optical Radiation for
ipRGC-Influenced Responses to Light. CIE S
026/E:2018. Vienna: CIE, 2018.
30 Sithravel RK, Ibrahim R. Identifying
supportive daytime lighting characteristics for
enhancing individuals’ psychophysiological
wellbeing in windowless workplace in tropical
Malaysia. Indoor and Built Environment 2021;
30: 298–312.
31 Bellia L, Fragliasso F. Good places to live
and sleep well: a literature review about the
role of architecture in determining non-visual
effects of light. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health
2021; 18: 1002.
32 Andersen M. Unweaving the human
response in daylighting design. Building and
Environment 2015; 91: 101–117.
33 Jakubiec JA, Alight A. Spectral and biological
simulation methods for the design of healthy
circadian lighting. Proceedings of Building
Simulation 2021: 17th Conference of IBPSA,
Bruges, Belgium, 1–3 September 2021.
34 Alight A, Jakubiec JA. Evaluating the use
of photobiology-driven alertness and health
 Simulations of non-image-forming effects of light   685
measures for circadian lighting design.
Proceedings of Building Simulation 2021,
Bruges, Belgium, 1–3 September 2021.
35 Abboushi B, Safranek S. Determining critical
points to control electric lighting to meet
circadian lighting requirements and minimize
energy use. Proceedings of Annual Modeling
and Simulation Conference (ANNSIM), San
Diego, USA, 18–21 July 2022, pp. 559–568.
36 Danell M, Amundadottir ML, Rockcastle S.
Evaluating temporal and spatial light exposure
profiles for typical building occupants.
Proceedings of Symposium in Simulation in
Architecture and Urban Design, 25–27 May
2020, pp. 539–546.
37 Clotilde P, Eugenia SMV, Mariëlle A,
Marilyne A. A conceptual simulation
workflow to guide design decisions regarding
the effects of daylight on occupants’ alertness.
Proceedings of International Conference
CISBAT 2021, Lausanne, Switzerland, 8–10
September 2021.
38 Amundadottir ML, Rockcastle S, Sarey
Khanie M, Andersen M. A human-centric
approach to assess daylight in buildings for
non-visual health potential, visual interest
and gaze behavior. Building and Environment
2017; 113: 5–21.
39 Saiedlue S, Amirazar A, Hu J, Place W.
Assessing circadian stimulus potential of
lighting systems in office buildings by
simulations. Proceedings of ARCC Conference
Repository, Toronto, Canada, 29 May–1 June
2019, pp. 719–27.
40 Altenberg Vaz N, Inanici M. Syncing with the
sky: daylight-driven circadian lighting design.
LEUKOS 2020; 17: 291–309.
41 Potočnik J, Košir M. Influence of geometrical
and optical building parameters on the
circadian daylighting of an office. Journal of
Building Engineering 2021; 42: 102402.
42 Elsayed N, Rakha T. A framework to simulate
the non-visual effects of daylight on the
cognitive health of mild cognitive impairment
(MCI) people. Proceedings of 2020 Building
Performance Analysis Simbuild Virtual
Conference, 29 September–1 October 2020, pp.
119–29.
43 Zeng Y, Sun H, Lin B. Optimized lighting
energy consumption for non-visual effects: a
case study in office spaces based on field test
and simulation. Building and Environment
2021; 205: 108238.
44 Acosta I, Leslie RP, Figueiro MG. Analysis
of circadian stimulus allowed by daylighting
in hospital rooms. Lighting Research and
Technology 2015; 49: 49–61.
45 Bellia L, Acosta I, Campano MÁ, Fragliasso
F. Impact of daylight saving time on lighting
energy consumption and on the biological clock
for occupants in office buildings. Solar Energy
2020; 211: 1347–1364.
46 Salamati M, Mathur P, Kamyabjou G,
Taghizade K. Daylight performance analysis of
TiO2@W-VO2 thermochromic smart glazing
in office buildings. Building and Environment
2020; 186: 107351.
47 Rockcastle SF, Amundadottir ML, Andresen
M. The case for occupant-centric daylight
analytics: a comparison of horizontal
illumination and immersive view. Proceedings
of Building Simulation 2019, Rome, Italy, 2–4
September 2019, pp. 1239–1246.
48 Aguilar-Carrasco MT, Domínguez-Amarillo
S, Acosta I, Sendra JJ. Indoor lighting design
for healthier workplaces: natural and electric
light assessment for suitable circadian stimulus.
Optics Express 2021; 29: 29899–29917.
49 Zauner J, Plischke H. Designing light for night
shift workers: application of nonvisual lighting
design principles in an industrial production
line. Applied Sciences (Switzerland) 2021; 11:
10896.
50 Safranek S, Collier JM, Wilkerson A, Davis
RG. Energy impact of human health and
wellness lighting recommendations for office
and classroom applications. Energy and
Buildings 2020; 226: 110365.
51 Brennan MT, Collins AR. Outcome-based
design for circadian lighting: an integrated
approach to simulation and metrics.
Proceedings of ASHRAE and IBPSA-USA
Building Simulation Conference, Chicago,
USA, 26 to 28 September, 2018: pp. 141–8
52 Konis K. A circadian design assist tool to
evaluate daylight access in buildings for human
Lighting Res. Technol. 2023; 55: 669–689
686   M Gkaintatzi-Masouti et al.
biological lighting needs. Solar Energy 2019;
191: 449–58.
53 Potočnik J, Košir M, Dovjak M. Colour
preference in relation to personal determinants
and implications for indoor circadian luminous
environment. Indoor and Built Environment
2020; 31: 121–138.
54 Acosta I, Campano MÁ, Leslie R, Radetsky L.
Daylighting design for healthy environments:
analysis of educational spaces for optimal
circadian stimulus. Solar Energy 2019; 193:
584–596.
55 Lee J, Boubekri M. Introduction of new
daylighting metrics for health, wellbeing,
and feasibility: a study of the indoor building
environment. Journal of Green Building 2022;
17: 105–126.
56 Khademagha P, Diepens JFL, Aries MBC,
Rosemann ALP, van Loenen EJ. Effect of
different design parameters on the visual and
non-visual assessment criteria in office spaces.
Proceedings of International Conference
CISBAT 2015, Lausanne, Switzerland, 9–11
September, 2015, pp. 363–368.
57 Yun SI, Jeong JW, Choi A. Photopic
illuminance-based black-box model for
regulation of human circadian rhythm via
daylight control. Building and Environment
2021; 203: 108069.
58 Andersen M, Guillemin A, Amundadottir
ML, Rockcastle S. Beyond illumination:
An interactive simulation framework for
nonvisual and perceptual aspects of daylighting
performance. Proceedings of 13th Conference
of the International Building Performance
Simulation Association, Chambery, France,
26–28 August, 2013, pp. 2749–2756.
59 Inanici M, Brennan M, Clark E. Spectral
daylighting simulations: computing circadian
light. Proceedings of 14th International
Conference of IBPSA - Building Simulation,
Hyderabad, India, 7–9 December, 2015, pp.
1245–1252.
60 Ewing PH, Haymaker J, Edelstein EA.
Simulating circadian light: multi-dimensional
illuminance analysis. Proceedings of Building
Simulation 2017, San Fransisco, USA 7–9
August, 2017, pp. 2363–2371.
Lighting Res. Technol. 2023; 55: 669–689
61 Potočnik J, Košir M. Influence of commercial
glazing and wall colours on the resulting
non-visual daylight conditions of an office.
Building and Environment 2020; 171: 106627.
62 Danell MN, Hartmeyer S, Peterson L, Davis
R, Andersen M, Rockcastle S. The impact
of light distribution and furniture layout on
meeting light exposure objectives in an office
- A simulation case study. Proceedings of
Building Simulation 2021, Bruges, Belgium,
1–3 September, 2021.
63 Hosseini SN, Sheikhansari I. A daylight
assessment on visual and nonvisual effects of
light shelves: a human-centered simulation-
based approach. Journal of Daylighting 2022;
9: 28–47.
64 Song H, Jiang W, Cui P. A study on nonvisual
effects of natural light environment in a
maternity ward of a hospital in cold area.
BioMed Research International 2022; 2022:
8608892.
65 Inanici M, Abboushi B, Safranek S.
Evaluation of sky spectra and sky models in
daylighting simulations. Lighting Research and
Technology. First published 2 July 2022. DOI:
10.1177/14771535221103400
66 Pechacek CS, Andersen M, Lockley SW.
Preliminary method for prospective analysis
of the circadian efficacy of (day)light with
applications to healthcare architecture.
LEUKOS 2008; 5: 1–26.
67 Geisler-Moroder D, Dür A. Estimating
melatonin suppression and photosynthesis
activity in real-world scenes from computer
generated images. Proceedings of 5th
European Conference on Colour in Graphics,
Imaging, and Vision and 12th International
Symposium on Multispectral Colour Science,
Joensuu, Finland, 14–17 June 2010, pp.
346–352.
68 Amundadottir ML, Lockley SW, Andersen
M. Simulation-based evaluation of non-visual
responses to daylight: Proof-of-concept
study of healthcare re-design. Proceedings
of 13th Conference of the International
Building Performance Simulation Association,
Chambery, France, 26–28 August, 2013,
pp. 2757–2764.
 Simulations of non-image-forming effects of light   687
69 Mardaljevic J, Andersen M, Roy N,
Christoffersen J. A framework for predicting
the non-visual effects of daylight - part II:
the simulation model. Lighting Research and
Technology 2014; 46: 388–406.
70 Konis K. A novel circadian daylight metric for
building design and evaluation. Building and
Environment 2017; 113: 22–38.
71 Kim IT, Choi AS, Sung MK. Development
of a colour quality assessment tool for
indoor luminous environments affecting the
circadian rhythm of occupants. Building and
Environment 2017; 126: 252–265.
72 Kim IT, Choi AS, Sung MK. Accuracy
evaluation of a calculation tool based on the
spectral colour property of indoor luminous
environments. Building and Environment 2018;
139: 157–169.
73 Amirazar A, Azarbayjani M, Im OK, Zarrabi
AH, Ashrafi R, Cox R, et al. Assessing the
circadian potential of an office building in
the southeastern US. Proceedings of the
Symposium on Simulation for Architecture and
Urban Design, Delft, Netherlands, 4–7 June,
2018, pp. 24–30.
74 Balakrishnan P, Jakubiec A. Spectral rendering
with daylight: a comparison of two spectral
daylight simulation platforms. Proceedings of
Building Simulation 2019, Rome, Italy, 2–4
September, 2019, pp. 1191–1198.
75 Busatto N, Mora TD, Peron F, Romagnoni
P. Application of different circadian lighting
metrics in a health residence. Journal of
Daylighting 2020; 7: 13–24.
76 Maskarenj M, Deroisy B, Altomonte S. A new
tool and workflow for the simulation of the
non-image forming effects of light. Energy and
Buildings 2022; 262: 112012.
77 He S, Yan Y, Cai H. Improving the accuracy
of circadian lighting simulation with field
measurement. Journal of Building Performance
Simulation 2022; 15: 575–598.
78 Pierson C, Aarts MPJ, Andersen M. Validation
of spectral simulation tools for the prediction
of indoor daylight exposure. Proceedings of
Building Simulation 2021, Bruges, Belgium,
1–3 September, 2021.
79 Pierson C, Gkaintatzi-Masouti M, Aarts MPJ,
Andersen M. Validation of spectral simulation
tools for the prediction of indoor electric light
exposure. Proceedings of CIE 2021 Malaysia
Midterm Meeting and Conference, 27–29
September, 2021.
80 Dai Q, Huang Y, Hao L, Lin Y, Chen K.
Spatial and spectral illumination design for
energy-efficient circadian lighting. Building
and Environment 2018; 146: 216–225.
81 Sánchez-Cano A, Aporta J. Optimization
of lighting projects including photopic and
circadian criteria: a simplified action protocol.
Applied Sciences (Switzerland) 2020; 10: 8068.
82 Ezpeleta S, Orduna-Hospital E, Solana T,
Aporta J, Pinilla I, Sánchez-Cano A. Analysis
of photopic and melanopic lighting in teaching
environments. Buildings 2021; 11: 439.
83 Andersen M, Gochenour SJ, Lockley SW.
Modelling “non-visual” effects of daylighting
in a residential environment. Building and
Environment 2013; 70: 138–149.
84 Khademagha P, Aries M, Rosemann A,
van Loenen E. New method for analysing a
luminous environment considering non-image-
forming effects of light. Proceedings of 33rd
PLEA International Conference, Edinburgh,
2–5 July, 2017, pp. 3245–3252.
85 Yao Q, Cai W, Li M, Hu Z, Xue P, Dai Q.
Efficient circadian daylighting: a proposed
equation, experimental validation, and the
consequent importance of room surface
reflectance. Energy and Buildings 2020; 210:
109784.
86 Lee J, Boubekri M. Impact of daylight
exposure on health, well-being and sleep of
office workers based on actigraphy, surveys,
and computer simulation. Journal of Green
Building 2020; 15: 19–42.
87 Cai W, Yue J, Dai Q, Hao L, Lin Y, Shi W,
et al. The impact of room surface reflectance
on corneal illuminance and rule-of-thumb
equations for circadian lighting design.
Building and Environment 2018; 141: 288–297.
88 Postnova S, Lockley SW, Robinson PA.
Prediction of cognitive performance and
subjective sleepiness using a model of arousal
Lighting Res. Technol. 2023; 55: 669–689
688   M Gkaintatzi-Masouti et al.
dynamics. Journal of Biological Rhythms 2018;
33: 203–218.
89 Tekieh T, Lockley SW, Robinson PA,
McCloskey S, Zobaer MS, Postnova S.
Modeling melanopsin-mediated effects of light
on circadian phase, melatonin suppression,
and subjective sleepiness. Journal of Pineal
Research 2020; 69: e12681.
90 Ward G. and Shakespeare R. Rendering with
Radiance: The Art and Science of Lighting
Visualization. San Francisco: Morgan
Kaufmann Publishers, 1998.
91 Ruppertsberg AI, Bloj M. Rendering complex
scenes for psychophysics using radiance: how
accurate can you get? Journal of the Optical
Society of America 2006; 23: 759–767.
92 Ruppertsberg AI, Bloj M. Creating physically
accurate visual stimuli for free: spectral
rendering with radiance. Behavior Research
Methods 2008; 40: 304–308.
93 Inanici M, ZGF Architects. Lark spectral
lighting. Retrieved 12 October 2022 from
https://faculty.washington.edu/inanici/Lark/
Lark_home_page.html
94 Solemma. ALFA. Retrieved 12 October 2022
from https://www.solemma.com/alfa
95 Bodart M, Kleindienst S, Andersen M.
Graphical representation of climate-based
daylight performance to support architectural
design. LEUKOS 2008; 5: 39–61.
96 Gkaintatzi-Masouti M, Pierson C, van
Duijnhoven J, Andersen M, Aarts MPJ. A
simulation tool for building and lighting design
considering ipRGC-influenced light responses.
Proceedings of Building Simulation Nordic
2022, Copenhagen, Denmark, 22–23 August,
2022.
97 Bourgeois D, Reinhart CF, Ward G. Standard
daylight coefficient model for dynamic
daylighting simulations. Building Research and
Information 2008; 36: 68–82.
98 Diakite-Kortlever AKA, Knoop M. Forecast
accuracy of existing luminance-related spectral
sky models and their practical implications
for the assessment of the non-image-forming
effectiveness of daylight. Lighting Research
and Technology 2021; 53: 657–676.
Lighting Res. Technol. 2023; 55: 669–689
99 Pierson C, Aarts MPJ, Andersen M. Validation
of spectral simulation tools in the context of
ipRGC-influenced light responses of building
occupants. Journal of Building Performance
Simulation. First published 26 September 2022.
DOI: 10.1080/19401493.2022.2125582
100 Emde C, Buras-Schnell R, Kylling A, Mayer B,
Gasteiger J, Hamann U, et al. The libRadtran
software package for radiative transfer
calculations (version 2.0.1). Geoscientific
Model Development 2016; 9: 1647–1672.
101 International Commission on Illumination.
Colorimetry, 4th edition. CIE 015:2018.
Vienna: CIE, 2018.
102 International WELL Building Institute.
WELL v2 Q4 2021: WELL building standard.
Retrieved 12 October 2022 from https://
v2.wellcertified.com/wellv2/en/overview
103 Lucas RJ, Peirson SN, Berson DM, Brown TM,
Cooper HM, Czeisler CA, et al. Measuring and
using light in the melanopsin age. Trends in
Neurosciences 2014; 37: 1–9.
104 Rea MS, Figueiro MG, Bullough JD, Bierman
A. A model of phototransduction by the human
circadian system. Brain Research Reviews
2005; 50: 213–228.
105 Underwriters Laboratory. Design Guidelines
for Promoting Circadian Entrainment with
Light for Day-Active People. Northbrook, IL:
UL Design Guideline 24480, 2019.
106 Gall D, Bieske K. Definition and
measurement of circadian radiometric
quantities. light and health - non-visual
effects. Proceedings of the CIE symposium
2004, Vienna, Austria, 30 September–2
October, 2004, 1:129–132.
107 Nault E, Waibel C, Carmeliet J, Andersen
M. Development and test application of the
UrbanSOLve decision-support prototype for
early-stage neighborhood design. Building and
Environment 2018; 137: 58–72.
108 Rockcastle S, Amundadottir ML, Andersen M.
A simulation-based workflow to assess human-
centric daylight performance. Proceedings of
the Symposium on Simulation for Architecture
and Urban Design, Toronto, Canada, 21–24
May, 2017, pp. 17–24.
 Simulations of non-image-forming effects of light   689
109 Sarey Khanie M. Human responsive
daylighting in offices: a gaze-driven approach
for dynamic discomfort glare assessment. PhD
Dissertation, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de
Lausanne, Switzerland, 2015.
110 European Committee for Standardization.
Daylight in buildings. EN 17037:2018. 2018.
111 European Committee for Standardization. Light
and lighting - Lighting of work places - Part 1:
Indoor work places. EN 12464-1:2021. 2021.
112 Brown TM. Melanopic illuminance defines the
magnitude of human circadian light responses
under a wide range of conditions. Journal of
Pineal Research 2020; 69: e12655.
113 Schlangen LJM, Price LLA. The lighting
environment, its metrology, and non-visual
responses. Frontiers in Neurology 2021; 12:
624861.
114 Brown TM, Brainard GC, Cajochen C,
Czeisler CA, Hanifin JP, Lockley SW, et al.
Recommendations for daytime, evening, and
nighttime indoor light exposure to best support
physiology, sleep, and wakefulness in healthy
adults. PLoS Biology 2022; 20: e3001571.
115 Soto Magan VE. Alertness in work
environments - on the role of indoor
daylight exposure. PhD Dissertation,
Ecole Polytechnique Federal de Lausanne,
Switzerland, 2021.
116 Münch M, Wirz-Justice A, Brown SA,
Kantermann T, Martiny K, Stefani O, et al.
The role of daylight for humans: gaps in
current knowledge. Clocks and Sleep 2020; 2:
61–85.
117 DIAL GmbH. DIALux. Retrieved 12 October
2022 from https://www.dialux.com/en-GB/.
118 Relux Informatik AG. Relux. Retrieved 12
October 2022 from https://relux.com/en/
119 Sarey Khanie M, Stoll J, Einhäuser W,
Wienold J, Andersen M. Gaze and discomfort
glare, Part 1: Development of a gaze-driven
photometry. Lighting Research and Technology
2017; 49: 845–865.
120 van Duijnhoven J, Aarts MPJ, Kort HSM. The
importance of including position and viewing
direction when measuring and assessing the
lighting conditions of office workers. Work
2019; 64: 877–895.
Lighting Res. Technol. 2023; 55: 669–689