Light wavelength and pulsing frequency affect avoidance responses of Canada geese.

Collisions between birds and aircraft cause bird mortality, economic damage, and aviation safety hazards. One proposed solution to increasing the distance at which birds detect and move away from an approaching aircraft, ultimately mitigating the probability of collision, is through onboard lighting systems. Lights in vehicles have been shown to lead to earlier reactions in some bird species but they could also generate attraction, potentially increasing the probability of collision. Using information on the visual system of the Canada goose (Branta canadensis), we developed light stimuli of high chromatic contrast to their eyes. We then conducted a controlled behavioral experiment (i.e., single-choice test) to assess the avoidance or attraction responses of Canada geese to LED lights of different wavelengths (blue, 483 nm; red, 631 nm) and pulsing frequencies (steady, pulsing at 2 Hz). Overall, Canada geese tended to avoid the blue light and move towards the red light; however, these responses depended heavily on light exposure order. At the beginning of the experiment, geese tended to avoid the red light. After further exposure the birds developed an attraction to the red light, consistent with the mere exposure effect. The response to the blue light generally followed a U-shape relationship (avoidance, attraction, avoidance) with increasing number of exposures, again consistent with the mere exposure effect, but followed by the satiation effect. Lights pulsing at 2 Hz enhanced avoidance responses under high ambient light conditions; whereas steady lights enhanced avoidance responses under dim ambient light conditions. Our results have implications for the design of lighting systems aimed at mitigating collisions between birds and human objects. LED lights in the blue portion of the spectrum are good candidates for deterrents and lights in the red portion of the spectrum may be counterproductive given the attraction effects with increasing exposure. Additionally, consideration should be given to systems that automatically modify pulsing of the light depending on ambient light intensity to enhance avoidance.

Preliminary evaluation of discomfort glare from organic light-emitting diode and edge-lit light-emitting diode lighting panels.

The organic light-emitting diode (OLED) is an area light source, and its primary competing technology is the edge-lit light-emitting diode (LED) panel. Both technologies are similar in shape and appearance, but there is little understanding of how people perceive discomfort glare (DG) from area sources. The objective of this study was to evaluate the DG of these two technologies under similar operating conditions. Additionally, two existing DG models were compared to evaluate the correlation between predicted values and observed values. In an earlier study, we found no statistically significant difference in human response in terms of DG between OLED and edge-lit LED panels when the two sources produced the same luminous stimulus. The range of testing stimulus was expanded to test different panel luminances at three background illuminations. The results showed no difference in perceived glare between the panels, and, as the background illumination increased, the perceived glare decreased. In other words, both appeared equally glary beyond a certain luminance and background illumination. We then compared two existing glare models with the observed values and found that one model showed a good estimation of how humans perceive DG. That model was further modified to increase its power.