Schollhorn and teammates studied responses to artificial skies. They used an overhead light panel that “reproduced nature-adapted light scenarios. In a laboratory office environment, three lighting scenarios were presented during the day: two lighting conditions with nature-adapted spectral light distributions, one with static and one with dynamic clouds, and a standard office lighting condition. . . . We found no evidence that an 8-h lighting scenario with static or dynamic clouds during the waking day (9am-5pm) was associated with any significant effect on objective and/or subjective alertness, cognitive performance and morning cortisol concentrations compared to standard workplace lighting. . . . results showed no impact of dynamic nature-adapted lighting on subjective and objective sleepiness or cognitive performance, compared to standard workplace lighting. However, dynamic lighting was associated with a lower subjective perceived levels of tension after the cognitive tasks and less effort to concentrate than static lighting. The effects of dynamic lighting on cognitive performance, circadian physiology and well-being might take time to manifest.”
Isabel Schollhorn, Gunnar Deuring, Oliver Stefani, Michael Strumberger, Timm Rosburg, Patrick Lemoine, Achim Pross, Benjamin Wingert, Ralph Mager, and Christian Cajochen. 2023. “Effects of Nature-Adapting Lighting Solutions (‘Virtual Sky’) on Subjective and Objective Correlates of Sleepiness, Well-Being, Visual and Cognitive Performance at the Workplace.” PLoS ONE, vol. 18, no. 8, e0288690, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288690