This article describes the development of a device to investigate the non-visual responses to light: The Light-Dosimeter (lido). Its multidisciplinary team followed a user-centred approach throughout the project, that is, their design decisions focused on researchers’ and participants’ needs. Together with custom-made mountings and the software Lido Studio, the lidos provide researchers with a holistic solution to record participants’ light exposure in the near-corneal plane in laboratory settings and under real-world conditions. Validation measurements with commercial equipment were deemed satisfying, as was the combining with data from other devices. The handling of the lidos and mountings and the use of the software Lido Studio during the trial period by various researchers and participants were successful. Despite some limitations, the lidos can help advance research on the non-visual responses to light over the coming years.

Understanding user challenges with light dosimeters is crucial for designing more acceptable devices and advancing light exposure research. We systematically evaluated the usability and acceptability of a light dosimeter (lido) with 29 participants who wore the dosimeter near the corneal plane of the eye for 5 days. Common reasons for not wearing the dosimeter included exercise, recharging, wet environments, public places, and discomfort. Despite these issues, participants adhered to using the dosimeter with high compliance (89% of recording time). Our findings revealed a significant discrepancy between mean (300 lx_mEDI) and median (51 lx_mEDI) melanopic equivalent daylight illuminance. This discrepancy indicates that the participants were exposed to significantly lower light levels most of the time. Specifically, participants were exposed to light levels above 250 lx_mEDI for only 14% of their wearing time. This highlights the need for increased exposure to recommended light levels. In the evening, participants were exposed to less than the recommended 10 lx_mEDI for 58% of their wearing time, which is in line with the guidelines for reducing light exposure before sleep. This study highlights the urgent need for strategies to increase daily light exposure that are more in line with circadian health recommendations.

Introduction: Exposure to light fundamentally influences human physiology and behaviour by synchronising our biological clock to the external light-dark cycle and controlling melatonin production. In addition to well-controlled laboratory studies, more naturalistic approaches to examining these “non-visual” effects of light have been developed in recent years. As naturalistic light exposure is quite unlike well-controlled stimulus conditions in the laboratory, it is critical to measure light exposure in a person-referenced way, the “spectral diet.” To this end, light loggers have been developed to capture personalised light exposure. As an alternative to light sensors integrated into wrist-worn actimeters, pendants, or brooch-based light loggers, a recently developed wearable light logger laterally attached to spectacle frames enables the measurement of biologically relevant quantities in the corneal plane. Methods: Here, we examine the usability and acceptability of using the light logger in an undergraduate student sample (n = 18, mean±1SD: 20.1 ± 1.7 years; 9 female; Oxford, UK) in real-world conditions during a 24-h measurement period. We probed the acceptability of the light logger using rating questionnaires and open-ended questions. Results: Our quantitative results show a modest acceptability of the light logger. A thematic analysis of the open-ended questions reveals that the form factor of the device, in particular, size, weight, and stability, and reactions from other people to the wearer of the light logger, were commonly mentioned aspects. Conclusion: In sum, the results indicate the miniaturisation of light loggers and “invisible” integration into extant everyday objects as key areas for future technological development, facilitating the availability of light exposure data for developing personalised intervention strategies in both research, clinical and consumer contexts.

Wearable light loggers and optical radiation dosimeters are increasingly used in chronobiology and circadian health research, yet their data often lack contextual information (e.g., sleep, activity, environmental conditions) and may be compromised by non-wear periods, compliance issues, or technical faults. To address these limitations, we conducted interviews (n = 21) and a survey (n = 16) with domain experts to distil and iteratively develop auxiliary data and quality-control strategies aimed at improving the accuracy and interpretability of wearable light measurements. From this process, we established a six-domain auxiliary data framework encompassing wear/non-wear logging, sleep monitoring, light-source context, participant behaviour, user experience, and environmental light levels. Survey responses showed strong consensus on the value of auxiliary information (importance 4.0/5), with sleep and wear-time tracking rated as the most essential additions. To support practical adoption, we provide implementation tools, including extensions to the open-source R package LightLogR, enabling streamlined integration of wearable and auxiliary data as well as systematic quality assurance and control. Experts agreed that combining contextual records with rigorous QA/QC procedures substantially improves the reliability of field-collected light-exposure data. These recommendations and tools aim to help researchers in chronobiology, wearable sensing, and health sciences maximise data quality and enhance interpretation in real-world light-exposure studies.

Exposure to light fundamentally influences human physiology and behaviour by synchronising our biological clock to the external light-dark cycle and controlling melatonin production. In addition to well-controlled laboratory studies, more naturalistic approaches to examining these “non-visual” effects of light have been developed in recent years. As naturalistic light exposure is quite unlike well-controlled stimulus conditions in the laboratory, it is critical to measure light exposure in a person-referenced way, the ‘spectral diet’. To this end, light loggers have been developed to capture personalised light exposure. As an alternative to light sensors integrated into wrist-worn actimeters, pendants or brooch-based light loggers, a recently developed wearable light logger laterally attached to spectacle frames enables the measurement of biologically relevant quantities in the corneal plane. Here, we examine the usability and acceptability of using the light logger in an undergraduate student sample (n=18, mean±1SD: 20.1±1.7 yrs; 9 female; Oxford, UK) in real-world conditions during a 24-hour measurement period. We probed the acceptability of the light logger using rating questionnaires and open-ended questions. Our quantitative results show a modest acceptability of the light logger. A thematic analysis of the open-ended questions reveals that the form factor of the device, in particular, size, weight and stability, and reactions from other people to the wearer of the light logger, were commonly mentioned aspects. In sum, the results indicate the miniaturisation of light loggers and “invisible” integration into extant everyday objects as key areas for future technological development, facilitating the availability of light exposure data for developing personalised intervention strategies in both research, clinical and consumer contexts.

Understanding user challenges with light dosimeters is crucial for designing more acceptable devices and advancing light exposure research. We systematically evaluated the usability and acceptability of the lido (light dosimeter) by 29 participants who wore the dosimeter near the corneal plane of the eye for 5 days. Common reasons for not wearing the dosimeter included exercise, recharging, wet environments, public settings, and discomfort. Despite these issues, participants adhered to using the dosimeter, with high compliance (89% of recording time). Our findings reveal a significant discrepancy between mean melanopic Equivalent Daylight Illuminance (300 lxmEDI) and median values (51 lxmEDI). This discrepancy indicates that, for most of the time, participants experienced significantly lower light levels. Specifically, participants were exposed to light levels above 250 lxmEDI for only 14% of their wearing time. This highlights the need for increased exposure to recommended light levels. In the evening, participants' light exposure was below the recommended 10 lxmEDI for 58% of the wear time, which is in line with the guidelines for reducing light exposure before sleep. This study highlights the critical need for strategies to enhance daily light exposure, aligning better with circadian health recommendations.