## 3 Experimental Results and Discussion  
Through analyzing the spectral power distribution of the actual lighting environment of the three art museums and considering illuminance and CCT, the \(\Delta\)C* is obtained by calculation (measured in terms of the quantity \(\Delta\)C*, an object saturation measure computed in CIELAB colour space that corresponds to the mean value of the individual \(\Delta\)C* values of the 15 CQS test colour samples VS1-VS15) [21]. It is observed in Table 3, three nominal illuminance levels (84 \(\mathrm{lx}\), 115 \(\mathrm{lx}\), 538 \(\mathrm{lx}\)) and three nominal CCT levels (2188 \(\mathrm{K}\), 2903 \(\mathrm{K}\), 3671 \(\mathrm{K}\)) were used. All of them were at the same high CRI (\(90\leq\mathrm{Ra}\leq 96\)) level corresponding to a low oversaturation level (\(-0.08\leq\Delta\)C* \(\leq 1.08\)). By assessing their visual impressions about CP and SP, try to find \"good\" levels of the visual attributes. Under the actual horizontal illuminance of the light source, their visual impression on the scene brightness was evaluated, including CP and SP. The data in Table 3 indicates SP and CP. Distinctly, samples \(3>2>1\) demonstrate that the values of CP and SP of environment 3 are good. From the perspective of correlation, the Pearson correlation coefficient between subjective preference score and the calculated results of the index (CP, SP) was calculated. The \(p\)-value was adopted to indicate whether the correlation was significant. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**CV** & **Comfort** & **Clarity** & **Preference** & **Warmth** \\ \hline Environment 1 & 19.86 & 17.87 & 16.58 & 17.23 \\ Environment 2 & 18.92 & 14.05 & 14.96 & 13.81 \\ Environment 3 & 13.39 & 13.54 & 12.41 & 20.16 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: CV for evaluating scores in different lighting environments. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**No.** & **CCT (K)** & \(\Delta\)**C* & **Illuminance (lx)** & **CP** & **SP** & **Ra** \\ \hline
1 & 2188 & \(-\)0.08 & 84 & 7.82 & 8.96 & 96 \\
2 & 2903 & 1.08 & 115 & 29.89 & 30.11 & 90 \\
3 & 3671 & 0.41 & 538 & 61.17 & 63.98 & 93 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Three museums of 3 spectral properties. (No.1 is the national museum of western art. No.2 is the Aichi Prefectural museum of art. No.3 is the [PERSON] museum of art). As shown in Table 4, the \(p\)-value of CP and SP was less than 0.05, indicating a high significance level. SP < 0.01 shows that it was more significant, and SP accounted for more of the preference score. The Pearson correlation coefficients(r) of CP and SP were both higher than 0.99, indicating that their preference scores were significantly correlated with CP and SP. One-way analysis of variance was carried out on the observer's evaluation in the three lighting environments. The results are demonstrated in Table 5.  
The results in Table 5 indicate that the significance is less than 0.01 under the four indicators of comfort, clarity, preference and warmth, which demonstrates a significant difference in the observer's evaluation of comfort, clarity, preference and warmth in three lighting environments. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) used to test the significance of difference between two or more samples. In three different lighting environments, the four psychological factors (comfort, clarity, preference, warmth) are processed in relation to the data. Figure 13 shows the mean of the psychological perception of the 31 observers in these three lighting environments. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Name** & **r** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline CP & 0.9996 & 0.0172 \\ SP & 1.0000 & 0.0040 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Pearson correlation coefficient between preference rating and index (CP, SP). Figure 13: Mean value of four psychological perceptions in different environments (Environment 1 is the national museum of western art. Environment 2 is the Aichi Prefectural museum of art. Environment 3 is the Yamazaki Mazak museum of art).