Luke L. A. Price, Andrey Lyachev, and Marina Khazova, "Optical performance characterization of light-logging actigraphy dosimeters," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 34, 545-557 (2017)
There are several wearable products specially developed or marketed for
studying sleep, circadian rhythms, and light levels. However, new
recommendations relating to human physiological responses to light
have changed what measurements researchers may demand. The
performances of 11 light-logging dosimeters from eight manufacturers
were compared. The directional and spectral sensitivities, linearity,
dynamic range, and resolution were tested for seven models, and
compared along with other published data. The sample mainly comprised
light-logging actigraphy dosimeters wearable as badges, in accordance
with measurement protocols for larger-scale field studies. A proposed
standard for optical performance assessments is set out.
Adel S. A. Elsharkawi, Huda A. Elazab, Mostafa A. Askar, Ibrahim Y. Abdelrahman, Amany A. Arafa, Lofty R. Gomma, and Yu-Lung Lo Biomed. Opt. Express 15(5) 3492-3506 (2024)
Relative sensitivity to spectral irradiance with narrowband (monochromatic) light.
Cited By
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Figure files are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article tables are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Equations are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
Bold figures show spectral mismatches below
20%.
Based on marginal spectral sensitivity, see main text for
further details.
Table 3.
Average Cosine Response Error at 532 nm for Each Model, Plus
Semi-Axes T2B, from Top to Bottom, and R2L, from Right to
Left, and the Impact of the Dynamic Calibration Geometry,
a
Bold figures show combined errors within 20%,
acceptable values if is not available, and
between 80% and 120%.
Excludes outlier for light at 28 deg below the normal, see
Fig. 2.
Table 4.
Dynamic Performances of the Devices, Shown as Equivalent
Illuminances and Unweighted Irradiances, Relating to Test
Conditions from to
Over the linear range relative to an
appropriate reference value. Bold values indicate
linear ranges satisfying the upper or lower
-opic thresholds. No data
were available for DIME and sensors.
Tables (4)
Table 1.
Make, Model, Abbreviation, Present Manufacturer, and Brief Scope of
Presented Data for the Devices Identifieda
Bold figures show spectral mismatches below
20%.
Based on marginal spectral sensitivity, see main text for
further details.
Table 3.
Average Cosine Response Error at 532 nm for Each Model, Plus
Semi-Axes T2B, from Top to Bottom, and R2L, from Right to
Left, and the Impact of the Dynamic Calibration Geometry,
a
Bold figures show combined errors within 20%,
acceptable values if is not available, and
between 80% and 120%.
Excludes outlier for light at 28 deg below the normal, see
Fig. 2.
Table 4.
Dynamic Performances of the Devices, Shown as Equivalent
Illuminances and Unweighted Irradiances, Relating to Test
Conditions from to
Over the linear range relative to an
appropriate reference value. Bold values indicate
linear ranges satisfying the upper or lower
-opic thresholds. No data
were available for DIME and sensors.