Abstract
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.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
During parts of this work, M.S. was supported by a Sir Henry Wellcome Postdoctoral Fellowship (Wellcome Trust, 204686/Z/16/Z) and Linacre College, University of Oxford (Biomedical Sciences Junior Research Fellowship).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The research project was reviewed and approved by the Medical Sciences Interdivisional Research Ethics Committee (MS IDREC) of the University of Oxford (R79098/RE001, R79102/RE001). All participants gave written informed consent. The research was conducted in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵+ Joint first author
Data Availability
All data, code and materials are available on GitHub (https://github.com/TUMChronobiology/lido-acceptability/).
