Light is known to elicit non–image-forming responses, such as effects on alertness. This has been reported especially during light exposure at night. Nighttime results might not be translatable to the day. This article aims to provide an overview of (1) neural mechanisms regulating alertness, (2) ways of measuring and quantifying alertness, and (3) the current literature specifically regarding effects of different intensities of white light on various measures and correlates of alertness during the daytime. In general, the present literature provides inconclusive results on alerting effects of the intensity of white light during daytime, particularly for objective measures and correlates of alertness. However, the various research paradigms employed in earlier studies differed substantially, and most studies tested only a limited set of lighting conditions. Therefore, the alerting potential of exposure to more intense white light should be investigated in a systematic, dose-dependent manner with multiple correlates of alertness and within one experimental paradigm over the course of day.

To date, it is largely unknown which light settings define the optimum to steer alertness and cognitive control during regular daytime working hours. In the current article, we used a multimeasure approach combined with a relatively large sample size (N = 60) and a large range of intensity levels (20-2000 lux at eye level) to investigate the dose-dependent relationship between light and correlates of alertness and executive control during regular working hours in the morning and afternoon. Each participant was exposed to a single-intensity light level for 1 h after a 30-min baseline phase (100 lux at the eye) in the morning and afternoon (on separate days) during their daily routine. Results revealed no clear dose-dependent relationships between 1-h daytime light exposure and correlates of alertness or executive control. Subjective correlates showed only very modest linear relationships with the log-transformed illuminance, and we found no significant effects of light intensity on the behavioral and physiological indicators. Overall, these results suggest that daytime exposure to more intense light, at least for 1 h of exposure, may not systematically benefit alertness or executive functioning. However, future research is required to investigate effects of longer exposure durations and potential moderations by prior light exposure, personal characteristics, and spectrum.

Summary: Rest–activity patterns are important aspects of healthy sleep and may be disturbed in conditions like circadian rhythm disorders, insomnia, insufficient sleep syndrome, and neurological disorders. Long‐term monitoring of rest–activity patterns is typically performed with diaries or actigraphy. Here, we propose an unobtrusive method to obtain rest–activity patterns using smartphone keyboard activity. The present study investigated whether this proposed method reliably estimates rest and activity timing compared to daily self‐reports within healthy participants. First‐year students (n = 51) used a custom smartphone keyboard to passively and objectively measure smartphone use behaviours and completed the Consensus Sleep Diary for 1 week. The time of the last keyboard activity before a nightly absence of keystrokes, and the time of the first keyboard activity following this period were used as markers. Results revealed high correlations between these markers and user‐reported onset and offset of resting period (r ranged from 0.74 to 0.80). Linear mixed models could estimate onset and offset of resting periods with reasonable accuracy (R² ranged from 0.60 to 0.66). This indicates that smartphone keyboard activity can be used to estimate rest–activity patterns. In addition, effects of chronotype and type of day were investigated. Implementing this method in longitudinal studies would allow for long‐term monitoring of (disturbances to) rest–activity patterns, without user burden or additional costly devices. It could be particularly interesting to replicate these findings in studies amongst clinical populations with sleep‐related problems, or in populations for whom disturbances in rest–activity patterns are secondary complaints, such as neurological disorders.