When asked for a subjective judgment, such as rating the discomfort from a glare source, the response of participants depends on the range of stimuli they are provided: this is known as a stimulus range effect. In the present note, the stimulus range effect is discussed in the context of discomfort glare studies. Its status is compared to various kinds of biases, in the metrological and in various psychological senses. This discussion leads to discard the idea that the stimulus range effect should be considered a bias in the case of discomfort glare. A methodology (stimulus range selection) is described to overcome the stimulus range effect problem in the modelling of discomfort glare, at least for engineering applications.
1. Parsons, J.H. Glare, its causes and effect // The Lancet, 1910, Vol. 175, # 4508, pp. 234–236.
2. Holladay, L.L. The fundamentals of glare and visibility // Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1926, Vol. 12, pp. 271–319.
3. Wienold, J., Christoffersen, J. Evaluation methods and development of a new glare prediction model for daylight environments with the use of CCD cameras // Energy and Buildings, 2006, Vol. 38, pp. 743–757.
4. Luckiesh, M., Guth, S.K. Brightness in visual field at borderline between comfort and discomfort (BCD) // Illuminating Engineering, 1949, Vol. 44, pp. 650–670.
5. Budak, V.P. Zheltov, V. S., Meshkova, T. V., Notfullin, R.S. Evaluation of illumination quality based on spatial-angular luminance distribution // Light & Engineering, 2017, Vol. 25, # 4, pp. 24–31.
6. Hopkinson, R.G. Discomfort glare in lighted streets // Transactions of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 1940, Vol. 5, pp. 1–24.
7. de Boer, J. B., Schreuder, D.A. Glare as a criterion for quality in street lighting // Lighting Research and Technology, 1967, Vol. 32, # 2, pp. 117–137.
8. Schmidt-Clausen, H.-J., Bindels, J. Assessment of discomfort glare in motor vehicle lighting // Lighting Research and Technology, 1974, Vol. 6, # 2, pp. 79–88.
9. CIE, Glare and uniformity in road lighting installations, Technical report # 31, Paris: Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage, 1976.
10. CIE, Discomfort glare in the interior lighting environment, Technical report # 55, Vienna: Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage, 1983.
11. CIE, Discomfort glare in interior lighting, Technical Report # 117, Vienna: Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage, 1995.
12. CIE, Glare from small, large and complex sources, Technical report # 147, Vienna: Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage, 2002.
13. CIE, Discomfort glare in road lighting and vehicle lighting, Technical Report # 243, Vienne: Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage, 2021.
14. CIE, Review of lighting quality measures for interior lighting with LED lighting systems, Technical Report # 205, Vienne: Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage, 2013.
15. Vissenberg, M., Perz, M., Donners, M., Sekulovski, D. Generic glare sensation model based on the human visual system // In Proc CIE Midterm meeting, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2021.
16. Girard, J., Villa, C., Brémond, R. Discomfort due to glare from a cyclic source in outdoor lighting conditions // Leukos, 2021.
17. Fotios, S., Uttley, J., Cheal, C., Hara, N. Using eye-tracking to identify pedestrians’ critical visual tasks, Part 1. Dual task approach // Lighting Research and Technology, 2015, Vol. 47, # 2, pp. 133–148.
18. Fotios, S., Kent, M. Measuring discomfort from glare: Recommendations for good practice // Leukos, 2021, Vol. 17, # 4, pp. 338–358.
19. Veitch, J., Fotios, S., Houser, K. Judging the scientific quality of applied lighting research // Leukos, 2019, Vol. 15, #(2–3), pp. 97–114.
20. Parducci, A. Category judgment: a range-frequency model // Psychological Review, 1965, Vol. 72, # 6, pp. 407–418.
21. Poulton, E.C. Bias in quantifying judgments // Hove, UK. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989.
22. Kent, M., Fotios, S. The effect of a pre-trial range demonstration on subjective evaluations using category rating of discomfort due to glare // Leukos, 2021, Vol. 17, # 1, pp. 43–58.
23. Parducci, A. Range-frequency compromise in judgments // Psychological monographs, 1963, Vol. 77, # 2, pp. 1–50.
24. Parducci, A., Calfee, R. C., Marshall, L. M., Davidson, L.P. Context-effects in judgments: Adaptation level as a function of the mean, midpoint and median of the stimuli // Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1960, Vol. 60, pp. 65–77.
25. Parducci, A., Perrett, L.F. Category rating scales: effects of relative spacing and frequency of stimulus value // Journal of experimental psychology: Monography, 1971, Vol. 89, # 2, pp. 427–452.
26. Parducci, A., Wedell, D.H. The category effect with rating scales: Number of categories, number of stimuli, and method of presentation // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1986, Vol. 12, # 4, pp. 496–512.
27. Lulla et Bennett Discomfort glare: range effects // Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 1981, Vol. 10, # 2, pp. 74–80.
28. Fotios, S. Using category rating to evaluate the lit environment: is a meaningful opinion captured? // Leukos, 2019, Vol. 15, # (2–3), pp. 127–142.
29. Poulton, E.C. The new psychophysics: Six models for magnitude estimation // Psychological Bulletin, 1968, Vol. 69, pp. 1–19.
30. Poulton, E.C. Unwanted range effects from using within-subjects experimental designs // Psychological bulletin, 1973, Vol. 80, pp. 113–121.
31. Poulton, E.C. Range effects in experiments on people // American Journal of Psychology, 1975, Vol. 88, pp. 3–32.
32. Poulton, E.C. Quantitative subjective assessments are almost always biased, sometimes completely misleading // British Journal of Psychology, 1977, Vol. 68, pp. 409–425.
33. Poulton, E.C. Models for biases in judging sensory magnitude // Psychological Bulletin, 1979, Vol. 86, # 4, pp. 777–803.
34. Fotios, S. Cheal, C. Stimulus range bias explains the outcome of preferred-illuminance adjustments // Lighting Research and Technology, 2010, Vol. 42, # 4, pp. 433–447.
35. Krumpal, I. Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review // Quality & Quantity, 2013, Vol. 47, # 4, pp. 2025–2047.
36. Boring, E.G. The stimulus-error // American Journal of Psychology, 1921, Vol. 32, pp. 449–471.
37. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases // Science, 1974, Vol. 185, # 4157, pp. 1124–1131.
38. Kahneman, D. Nobel lecture // Stockholm, Sweden: Nobel foundation, 2002.
39. Simon, H. A. A behavioural model of rational choice // The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1955, Vol. 69, pp. 99–118.
40. Dehaene, S. The number sense: how the mind creates mathematics // Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2011.
41. Stevens, S.S. On the theory of scales of measurement // Science, 1946, Vol. 103, # 2684, pp. 677–680.
42. Fechner, G.T. Elemente der Psychophysik // Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1860.
43. Stevens, S.S. On the psychophysical law // Psychological review, 1957, Vol. 64, pp. 153–181.
44. Piéron, H. Les échelles subjectives peuventelles fournir la base d’une nouvelle loi psychophysique? // L’année Psychologique, 1959, Vol. 49, # 1, pp. 1–34.
45. Haubensak, G. The consistency model: a process model for absolute judgments // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1992, Vol. 18, pp. 303–309.
46. Hoc, J.M. Towards ecological validity of research in cognitive ergonomics // Theoretical issues in ergonomics science, 2001, Vol. 2, # 3, pp. 278–288.
47. Fotios, S. An error in brightness matching associated with the application of dimming // Lighting Research and Technology, 2001, Vol. 33, # 4, pp. 223–231.

• Previous article
• Next article

• stimulus range effect
• discomfort glare
• psychophysics
• methodology