## 3 Results  
The average melanopic irradiance at the equivalent eye position were 0.194 W/m\({}^{2}\), 0.037 W/m\({}^{2}\), and 0.087 W/m\({}^{2}\), for daylight, electric lighting, and light from displays, and the average \(CS\) values were 0.175, 0.037, and 0.114, respectively. For the conditions measured, daylight has the greatest circadian effect, while electric lighting has the least. Light from computer screens has less impact than daylight but considerably higher impact than electric light. For the spaces measured, the effect of light on circadian rhythms in offices in commercial buildings was much greater than the effect in home offices in residential buildings, as shown in Table 1. The average \(CS\) values in the home offices are all below the threshold (0.1), which suggests that the circadian effect of light is limited in current residential buildings. Anderson-Darling tests were conducted in MATLAB to determine whether each set of data has a normal distribution. The null hypothesis that the population data are normally distributed was rejected at the 5% significance level. Statisticians suggest that median and quartile values are extremely useful for measuring and describing skewed data that is not perfectly normally distributed [34]. Therefore, the distribution of the \(\alpha\)-optic irradiance and circadian stimulus for each condition in commercial offices is shown in a box and whisker plot in Figure 1. The inter-quartile ranges for daylight and light from displays are wide because of their dynamic nature. Daylight changes in intensity and spectrum throughout the day, while the screen output changes with the computer tasks. The interquartile range of melanopic irradiance for daylight is 0.180 W/m\({}^{2}\) to 0.388 W/m\({}^{2}\), which is considerably higher than the interquartile range for electric light (from 0.028 W/m\({}^{2}\) to 0.099 W/m\({}^{2}\)). [PERSON] suggested that exposure to light with a \(CS\) greater than 0.3 at the eye position for at least one hour has a significant impact on sleep quality and mood [30]. During the daytime, the median \(CS\) caused by daylight was 0.266. This suggests that daylight's circadian effect in typical windowed offices in commercial buildings is probably sufficient or nearly sufficient if the exposure time is longer than one hour. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline  & & \begin{tabular}{c} \(CS\) \\ **(Unifless)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Melanopic** \\ **Irradiance** \\ **(W/m\({}^{2}\))** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **S-Cone-Opic** \\ **Irradiance** \\ **(W/m\({}^{2}\))** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **M-Cone-Opic** \\ **Irradiance** \\ **(W/m\({}^{2}\))** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **L-Cone-Opic** \\ **Irradiance** \\ **(W/m\({}^{2}\))** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Rhodopic** \\ **Irradiance** \\ **(W/m\({}^{2}\))** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Residential buildings} & Daylight & 0.053 & 0.041 & 0.023 & 0.053 & 0.063 & 0.047 \\ \cline{2-8}  & Electric light & 0.004 & 0.003 & 0.001 & 0.006 & 0.009 & 0.004 \\ \cline{2-8}  & Computer screen & 0.049 & 0.032 & 0.022 & 0.041 & 0.047 & 0.037 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Commercial buildings} & Daylight & 0.296 & 0.346 & 0.204 & 0.408 & 0.463 & 0.387 \\ \cline{2-8}  & Electric light & 0.070 & 0.071 & 0.043 & 0.125 & 0.159 & 0.091 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-8}  & Computer screen & 0.180 & 0.142 & 0.095 & 0.176 & 0.201 & 0.165 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: The average \(\alpha\)-optic irradiance and circadian stimulus (\(CS\)) for daylight, electric lighting, and light from displays in home offices in residential buildings and offices in commercial buildings, as measured at the eye position. It can be seen from Figure 1 that the median _CS_ and melanopic irradiance for screens are higher than the medians for electric light, though the former's interquartile range is also larger.