## 1 Introduction  
Most interior lighting projects must comply with a series of requirements imposed by current regulations for various spaces, including levels of illuminance, uniformity, glare, correlated color temperature (CCT), or color rendering index (CRI) [1; 2], and nearly always including budgetary concerns and a desire for low energy consumption [3; 4]. Recently, there has been an increase in lighting projects that include, as new criteria, temporal variations in the light, both spectrally and in terms of intensity, with which our body is familiar and that regulate the circadian cycles of our biological clocks. Such projects represent the response to the presence of intrinsic photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRSCs) in humans and the nonvisual effects of light [5; 6; 7; 8; 9], and there are numerous studies that highlight the substantial influence that variations in the intensity and tone of light have on health, mood, and many other factors related to the tasks performed by individuals who work for long periods of time under artificial light [10; 11]. These lighting projects that consider the possible effects of light on people, optimizing them to create the greatest possible well-being in the short-, medium-, or long-term, are termed human-centric lighting (HCL) projects. However, the increasing number of such projects does not correspond to the importance that circadian light should have according to relevant studies, perhaps for several reasons, including the absence of specific clear regulations; manufacturer and market inertia; unacceptable costs; a lack of appropriate and properly characterized products; and a lack of a sufficient number of trained technicians, product promotion managers, or lighting designers. Biologically, there are two dependent pathways for light in the brain: visual and nonvisual. The well-known visual tasks of rods, S-cones, M-cones, and L-cones have been widely described, however the role of ipRGGs remains under study; their contribution to both functions has been described [12]. Since the discovery of ipRGGs, different action spectra and metrics have been proposedto estimate the potential melanopic contribution of lighting. A phototransduction model was introduced by [PERSON] et al. [13], whose mathematical model was designed to be consistent with data obtained from psychophysics, electrophysiology, and neuroanatomy and with new parameters such as circadian stimuli (CS) and circadian light (CL\({}_{\text{A}}\)). Their model considered a nonlinear neural behavior response in terms of threshold, saturation, and response to light stimulation and was described in several experiments. Light sources containing a high short-wavelength content have been correlated with sleep, mood, and behavior under exposure to a CS \(\geq\) 0.3 in the eye for at least 1 h in the morning [14]. The five equivalent \(\alpha\)-optic illuminance approach proposed by [PERSON] et al. [15] and adopted by the International Commission on Illumination (CIE) employed light measurement methods to quantify the effective irradiance for each of the photoreceptive inputs to the visual system independently [16]. Recently, the CIE adopted the previously defined melanopic equivalent daylight (D\({}_{65}\)) illuminance, EDI, which reflects the Deutsches Institut fur Normung (DIN) standards [17] and is designed to facilitate calculation. This parameter is defined as a light source-type D\({}_{65}\) which employs photopic illuminance E\({}_{\text{photopic,D65}}\) to provide the same melanopic irradiance as a light source with spectral power distribution (SPD) and photopic illuminance E\({}_{\text{photopic,SPD}}\). However, the CIE S 026/E:2018 standard includes information concerning the effects of age and field of view (FOV) when quantifying retinal photoreceptor stimulation for ipRGC-influenced responses to light (IIL responses).