He · Journal of sleep research 2023 · crossover trial · n=12

Shine light on sleep: Morning bright light improves nocturnal sleep and next morning alertness among college students.

Cited 23 times in the scientific literature.

Level 2 - randomized trial

Controlled crossover trial in humans

PubMed 36058557 · doi:10.1111/jsr.13724 · record verified 2026-08-31

What was done

Twelve university students (mean age 24.92 ± 1.78 years) working in an office environment completed a baseline period (2 workdays) followed by two separate 5-workday interventions separated by a 1-week washout. Participants were exposed for 1.5 hours in the early morning to either bright electric light (1000 lx, 6500 K at eye level) or standard office light (300 lx, 4000 K). Sleep outcomes were assessed via actigraphy and sleep diaries. Subjective daytime sleepiness, mood, mental fatigue, perceived effort, and next-morning sleepiness were tracked daily.

What was found

Compared to standard office light, morning bright light resulted in significantly higher sleep efficiency (83.82% ± 1.60 vs. 80.35% ± 1.57, p = 0.02), a lower sleep fragmentation index (15.26% ± 1.31 vs. 17.18% ± 1.28, p = 0.05), and shorter time in bed (7.12 ± 0.13 vs. 7.51 ± 0.12 hours, p = 0.03). Compared to baseline, the morning bright light condition resulted in earlier sleep onset, shorter sleep latency, and lower next-morning sleepiness (p < 0.05), though other self-rated daytime outcomes (mood, mental fatigue, perceived effort, daytime sleepiness) showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05).

Why it matters

This study provides preliminary field evidence that altering indoor morning lighting parameters (intensity and color temperature) can modestly improve objective sleep quality and morning alertness in sedentary indoor workers.

Limits

The sample size was very small (n = 12), and the intervention duration was limited to 5 workdays per condition. The abstract does not specify whether the crossover sequence was randomized or blinded, and subjective daytime ratings mostly failed to show significant benefits.

Cited by