↓ Skip to main content

Circadian light

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Circadian Rhythms, February 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#33 of 103)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
3 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
223 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
313 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Circadian light
Published in
Journal of Circadian Rhythms, February 2010
DOI 10.1186/1740-3391-8-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark S Rea, Mariana G Figueiro, Andrew Bierman, John D Bullough

Abstract

The present paper reflects a work in progress toward a definition of circadian light, one that should be informed by the thoughtful, century-old evolution of our present definition of light as a stimulus for the human visual system. This work in progress is based upon the functional relationship between optical radiation and its effects on nocturnal melatonin suppression, in large part because the basic data are available in the literature. Discussed here are the fundamental differences between responses by the visual and circadian systems to optical radiation. Brief reviews of photometry, colorimetry, and brightness perception are presented as a foundation for the discussion of circadian light. Finally, circadian light (CLA) and circadian stimulus (CS) calculation procedures based on a published mathematical model of human circadian phototransduction are presented with an example.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 313 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Other 4 1%
Unknown 292 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 59 19%
Student > Master 59 19%
Researcher 57 18%
Student > Bachelor 20 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 17 5%
Other 65 21%
Unknown 36 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 65 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 12%
Design 32 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 7%
Psychology 21 7%
Other 81 26%
Unknown 54 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 December 2019.
All research outputs
#5,744,583
of 23,510,717 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Circadian Rhythms
#33
of 103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,703
of 170,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Circadian Rhythms
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,510,717 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 103 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 170,071 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.