We have developed a two-measure system for evaluating light sources’ color rendition that builds upon conceptual progress of numerous researchers over the last two decades. The system quantifies the color fidelity and color gamut (change in object chroma) of a light source in comparison to a reference illuminant. The calculations are based on a newly developed set of reflectance data from real samples uniformly distributed in color space (thereby fairly representing all colors) and in wavelength space (thereby precluding artificial optimization of the color rendition scores by spectral engineering). The color fidelity score R_f is an improved version of the CIE color rendering index. The color gamut score R_g is an improved version of the Gamut Area Index. In combination, they provide two complementary assessments to guide the optimization of future light sources. This method summarizes the findings of the Color Metric Task Group of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES). It is adopted in the upcoming IES TM-30-2015, and is proposed for consideration with the International Commission on Illumination (CIE).

Twenty-two measures of color rendition have been reviewed and summarized. Each measure was computed for 401 illuminants comprising incandescent, light-emitting diode (LED) -phosphor, LED-mixed, fluorescent, high-intensity discharge (HID), and theoretical illuminants. A multidimensional scaling analysis (Matrix Stress = 0.0731, R² = 0.976) illustrates that the 22 measures cluster into three neighborhoods in a two-dimensional space, where the dimensions relate to color discrimination and color preference. When just two measures are used to characterize overall color rendition, the most information can be conveyed if one is a reference-based measure that is consistent with the concept of color fidelity or quality (e.g., Q_a) and the other is a measure of relative gamut (e.g., Q_g).

Purpose.: Involuntary physiological responses offer an alternative means to psychophysical procedures for objectively evaluating discomfort glare. This study examined eye movement and pupil size responses to glare discomfort using new approaches to analysis: relative pupil size and speed of eye movement. Methods.: Participants evaluated glare discomfort using the standard de Boer rating scale under various conditions manipulated to influence glare discomfort. Eye movement was recorded using an electro-oculogram (EOG), and pupil size was recorded using Tobii glasses. Ten young (mean age: 24.5 years old) and 10 senior (mean age: 61 years old) participants were recruited for this experiment. Results.: Subjective evaluation of glare discomfort was highly correlated with eye movement (multiple correlation coefficient [R²] of >0.94, P < 0.001) and pupil constriction (R² = 0.38, P < 0.001). Severe glare discomfort increased the speed of eye movement and caused larger pupil constriction. Larger variations of eye movement were found among seniors. Conclusions.: The two physiological responses studied here to characterize discomfort glare under various lighting conditions had significant correlation with the subjective evaluation. The correlation between discomfort glare and physiological responses suggests an objective way to characterize and evaluate discomfort glare that may overcome the problems of conventional subjective evaluation. It also offers an explanation as to why long-term exposure to discomfort glare leads to visual fatigue and eyestrain.