Correlated colour temperature effects on perceived temperature,translucency,glossiness and roughness of traditional Jun porcelain,modulated by gender

Abstract

Traditional Jun porcelain constitutes a significant cultural heritage, yet how lighting conditions affect its aesthetic perception remains underexplored. This study investigated the influence of correlated colour temperature (CCT) on multi-dimensional perception of Jun porcelain and examined the moderating role of gender. Using a THOUSLITE LED Cube lighting system, standardized Jun porcelain specimens with Lilac Purple glaze were illuminated under eight CCT conditions (2700 K to 6000 K) at constant 150 lx illumination, with spectral characteristics verified using a THOUSLITE FS spectroradiometer. Thirty participants (15 males and 15 females) evaluated five perceptual dimensions (glossiness, translucency, roughness, temperature and relief perception) of the specimens. Results revealed significant linear relationships between CCT and four dimensions, with higher CCTs enhancing perceived glossiness and translucency while reducing perceived roughness and temperature. Relief perception exhibited negligible sensitivity to CCT. Gender significantly modulated these relationships, with females showing greater sensitivity to CCT variations in perceiving glossiness, translucency and temperature, while males demonstrated stronger responses in roughness evaluation. These findings demonstrate predictable, linear CCT effects on Jun porcelain aesthetic qualities with dimension-specific and gender-based perceptual differences. This study advances understanding of lighting-material perception interactions and provides targeted lighting strategies for culturally authentic ceramic exhibition design.

1. Introduction

Effective lighting is paramount in shaping the perception and appreciation of material artifacts, particularly within cultural heritage contexts such as museums and galleries.^1,2 Beyond merely ensuring visibility, museum lighting serves dual objectives: preserving artifact integrity while facilitating meaningful visual engagement.^3,4 Accordingly, museum lighting research has progressively evolved from a primary concern with visual adequacy towards integrated strategies that simultaneously address conservation constraints and perceptual quality. Early investigations established foundational principles for balancing light exposure with conservation requirements,⁵ proposing strategies to minimize cumulative light damage without compromising visitor experience.⁶ Subsequent studies systematically examined how light source characteristics – particularly spectral composition – affect the colour rendering and visual appearance of artworks. These efforts include empirical evaluations of illuminant optimization for aesthetic preference and colour fidelity,^7,8 feasibility assessments of white-light LED systems for art display,⁹ and spectral optimization approaches aimed at reducing light absorbed by sensitive materials.¹⁰ More recent work has extended this inquiry to material-specific contexts, demonstrating that lighting parameters critically shape perceived colour quality in Chinese bronzeware,¹¹ colour naturalness and preference in traditional paintings,^12–14 and perceived gamut and tint under low illuminance conditions.¹⁵

Among lighting parameters, correlated colour temperature (CCT) has received particular attention. However, its role in perceptual research requires careful conceptual clarification. CCT, quantified in kelvin (K), is a metric describing the chromaticity of a light source by reference to the colour appearance of a blackbody radiator at a given temperature.¹⁰ Crucially, CCT characterizes the light source itself rather than the objects it illuminates. Nevertheless, systematic variations in source CCT inevitably alter the spectral composition of reflected light, thereby influencing the perceived appearance of illuminated surfaces.¹⁰ While CCT has been widely adopted in lighting design and research, its limitations are well documented and warrant explicit acknowledgment. Specifically, (1) light sources with identical CCT values can exhibit substantially different spectral power distributions (SPDs), resulting in divergent colour rendering behaviour¹⁶; (2) CCT provides no information about spectral content beyond chromaticity¹⁷; and (3) the classical Kruithof curve linking CCT and illuminance to visual comfort has been challenged by empirical evidence.¹⁸ These critiques underscore that CCT should not be treated as a comprehensive predictor of perceptual outcomes but rather as a constrained descriptive parameter whose effects must be examined under carefully controlled conditions.

Within these acknowledged limitations, CCT remains a practically relevant parameter for investigating how systematic variations in light source chromaticity influence perceptual responses. One particularly robust phenomenon associated with CCT is the hue–heat hypothesis, which posits that warmer CCTs (lower values, characterized by increased long-wavelength content) evoke psychological associations with physical warmth, whereas cooler CCTs (higher Kelvin values) elicit perceptions of coolness.¹⁹ Empirical studies have consistently demonstrated that CCT modulates thermal sensation, comfort and related affective responses in built environments, with warmer lighting (typically 2700 K to 3000 K) increasing perceived warmth and cooler lighting inducing cooler sensations.^20,21 Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses further confirm that, although modest in magnitude, these effects are robust across experimental settings and populations.²²

Beyond thermal perception, CCT-induced spectral shifts may also influence material appearance through both psychophysical and cognitive mechanisms. Warmer illumination enhances long-wavelength reflectance, potentially amplifying perceived redness, visual warmth and surface softness, whereas cooler illumination accentuates short-wavelength reflectance, which may enhance perceived translucency, sharpness or gloss – particularly in materials exhibiting subsurface scattering. However, the nature of these relationships remains insufficiently characterized for complex materials. Human perceptual responses to variations in visual stimuli, including spectral composition, are known to exhibit non-linear patterns depending on the perceptual attribute under evaluation and the range of variation.²³ More recent research has further suggested that perceptual sensitivity to spectral changes is not uniform across the CCT spectrum,^24,25 highlighting the need for attribute-specific and material-sensitive investigations.

Despite substantial advances in museum lighting research, most empirical studies have focused on paintings and textiles or on general visual performance metrics,^26,27 rather than systematically examining how CCT variations influence the multiple, distinct perceptual dimensions of artefacts with highly complex surface and optical properties. Some findings indicate that intermediate CCT levels (e.g. around 4000 K) may provide a balance between colour rendering quality and visibility for objects with intricate surface characteristics, yet these optima appear to be strongly material dependent.² Current museum lighting standards²⁸ are therefore largely derived from studies on planar, pigment-based artworks, leaving a critical gap in guidance for three-dimensional, glaze-based ceramic artefacts.

Jun porcelain, one of China’s five famous traditional ceramic wares dating back to the Song Dynasty (960 to 1279 CE), presents a unique case for addressing this gap. Distinguished by its remarkable yao-bian (kiln-transmutation) glazes that exhibit flowing colour variations, Jun porcelain embodies high aesthetic and cultural significance.²⁹ At the material level, its glaze is characterized by complex crystalline structures that produce variable translucency, localized colour pooling and distinctive crack patterns, resulting in optical behaviours that are highly sensitive to illumination conditions.^30,31 Inadequate or poorly calibrated lighting may therefore distort critical visual cues essential for accurate cultural interpretation and aesthetic appreciation, potentially leading to misrepresentation of their historical and artistic value.

The perceptual evaluation of ceramic materials necessitates a multi-dimensional approach. Fleming et al. established that material perception encompasses multiple interacting attributes rather than a single unified judgement.³² For traditional Chinese ceramics, professional assessment emphasizes both visual and tactile dimensions, with particular attention to glaze depth, texture, translucency and surface irregularities.^33,34 Recent studies further highlight the importance of translucency in ceramic appreciation,³⁵ texture visibility for accurate ceramic identification,³⁶ and the role of environmental lighting in shaping the aesthetic experience of textured surfaces.¹³ Given that these diverse attributes arise from distinct optical and cognitive mechanisms, it is plausible that they exhibit differential sensitivity to changes in illumination spectrum, including CCT.

Separate from lighting parameters, observer characteristics – particularly gender – represent another important dimension in material perception. Gender-related differences have been documented across perceptual domains directly relevant to ceramic evaluation. Cohen and Levy reported that females generally demonstrate greater sensitivity to fine textural information.³⁷ Bonnardel et al. further identified systematic gender differences in colour preferences, with females showing greater sensitivity to subtle variations in reddish-purple hues – colours particularly relevant to Jun porcelain glazes.³⁸ In museum contexts, Bartlett and Camba reported different viewing patterns and preferences between male and female visitors examining ceramic collections.³⁹ These findings suggest that gender may act as a moderating factor in the relationship between lighting conditions and material perception. If females exhibit enhanced sensitivity to subtle chromatic and textural cues, they may respond more strongly to CCT-induced spectral variations. Conversely, gender effects may emerge selectively for certain perceptual dimensions but not others. Clarifying these potential moderation effects is essential for developing inclusive and perceptually informed exhibition lighting strategies.

Despite the growing body of research on lighting and material perception, critical gaps persist in the context of Jun porcelain. First, while non-linear perceptual responses to CCT have been noted for attributes like colour preference,⁴⁰ it remains unknown whether similar non-linear patterns govern the perception of other key ceramic material properties. Second, although it is theorized that distinct material properties may exhibit varying sensitivity to environmental factors,⁴¹ systematic comparisons examining how multiple perceptual dimensions of a single, complex artefact respond to identical CCT variations are notably lacking. Third, despite well-established gender differences in visual and aesthetic processing,^42,43 the extent to which gender moderates the influence of CCT on ceramic material perception has not been empirically investigated.

Addressing these gaps is essential for developing evidence-based museum lighting practice. By elucidating whether CCT effects on ceramic perception are linear or non-linear, attribute specific or uniform, and moderated by observer gender, lighting strategies can be more precisely tailored to both material characteristics and audience diversity. Against this background, the present study aimed to provide a comprehensive empirical investigation into the effects of CCT on the perception of Jun porcelain. Specifically, the research objectives were (1) to assess the nature (linear or non-linear) of CCT’s influence on Jun porcelain perception; (2) to determine whether different perceptual dimensions of Jun porcelain exhibit differential sensitivity to CCT variations and (3) to examine whether gender moderates the relationship between CCT and ceramic material perception dimensions.

2. Method

2.1 Experimental design

We employed a mixed factorial design with gender (male, female) as a between-subjects factor and CCT at eight levels between 2700 K and 6000 K as a within-subjects factor. The eight CCT levels were strategically chosen within a range commonly encountered in museum and exhibition lighting applications.^28,44

The selected CCTs were 2700 K, 3000 K, 3500 K, 4000 K, 4500 K, 5000 K, 5500 K and 6000 K. Lower CCTs in the range of 2700 K to 3000 K are characteristic of traditional museum and gallery lighting, particularly in exhibitions emphasizing material authenticity, surface texture and damage mitigation.^5,6,9 Mid-range CCTs (3500 K to 4000 K) correspond to neutral white lighting commonly recommended in contemporary museum guidelines to balance visual clarity, colour fidelity and conservation concerns.^11,28 Higher CCTs (5000 K to 6000 K) are more frequently applied in commercial exhibition spaces, temporary installations and modern gallery environments where enhanced brightness perception and visual vividness are prioritized.^7,13 The spacing between adjacent CCT levels was determined based on two considerations. First, the step size aligns with reported just-noticeable differences in CCT perception under controlled viewing conditions.⁴⁵ Second, the use of relatively fine-grained intervals allows for the detection of potential non-linear or threshold effects across the CCT continuum, which have been reported in previous studies on visual comfort and colour appearance.⁴⁰

Throughout all experimental conditions, illuminance was maintained at a constant 150 lx, a level consistent with recommendations for illuminating ceramic artifacts in museums.²⁸ Crucially, light sources for all CCT conditions were carefully calibrated to ensure high colour fidelity and consistent colour rendering properties (see Table 1), thereby controlling for other light quality parameters that could influence material appearance independent of CCT.⁴⁶

Table 1

Light source spectral parameters across different CCT conditions

Parameter	Lighting condition
Parameter	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Measured CCT (T_cp, K)	2715	2992	3488	3947	4463	4969	5422	5995
D _uv	−0.0015	−0.0015	−0.0025	−0.0013	−0.0021	0.0008	0.0029	0.0021
Horizontal illuminance (E_h, lx)	150.2	150.3	150.2	150.6	150.1	150.0	151.3	151.0
CIE 1931 chromaticity coordinates (x)	0.4617	0.4395	0.4100	0.3844	0.3648	0.3519	0.3368	0.3265
CIE 1931 chromaticity coordinates (y)	0.4076	0.4032	0.3897	0.3751	0.3645	0.3624	0.3482	0.3388
Colour rendering index (CRI R_a)	97.0	95.4	94.9	97.6	97.2	97.5	97.8	95.9
CRI R₉	85.4	88.0	92.1	93.8	92.0	90.4	86.6	83.3
TM-30 fidelity index (R_f)	96.5	97.1	96.8	96.3	97.0	97.0	98.2	96.2
TM-30 gamut index (R_g)	102.4	99.8	101.5	101.2	102.7	101.3	101.0	103.1
TM-30 local chroma shift hue bin 1 (R_cs,h1)	−1%	0%	0%	−2%	0%	1%	0%	1%

All lighting conditions were generated using a THOUSLITE LED Cube spectral tunable lighting system and verified with a spectroradiometer. Constant illuminance of 150 lx was maintained across all CCT conditions while optimizing for high colour rendering properties.

Our dependent variables included the subjective ratings of five distinct material perception dimensions: glossiness, translucency, roughness, temperature and relief perception. These dimensions were selected because they represent key visual attributes through which ceramic materials, particularly those with complex glazes like Jun porcelain, are visually evaluated. They encompass properties related to surface reflection (glossiness), subsurface scattering (translucency), fine surface texture (roughness), three-dimensional form (relief perception) and the subjective thermal impression evoked by the material’s appearance under illumination (temperature).^32,47–49

2.2 Materials

The study used standardized Jun porcelain specimens as experimental stimuli (see Figure 1). A single glaze colour, Lilac Purple, representative of the distinctive purple-red glaze group characteristic of Jun ware, was selected. Each specimen had a standardized diameter of 120 mm and a thickness of 8 mm. These specimens were chosen for their renowned ‘yao-bian’ effect, resulting from complex high-temperature interactions between iron and copper elements.²⁹

Figure 1

The standardized Jun porcelain specimen

To ensure material consistency across trials and participants, all specimens were sourced from a single supplier using identical production methods.³⁰ Furthermore, a standardized flat plate form was selected for all specimens. This circular, planar geometry was chosen to minimize the influence of complex three-dimensional form variations on the perception of surface and glaze properties, allowing a more focused examination of CCT effects on the intrinsic material attributes.

2.3 Participants

Thirty participants (15 males and 15 females) were recruited from Huaqiao University. While no formal a priori power analysis was conducted due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, a post hoc power analysis was performed to evaluate sample adequacy and is reported in Section 2.6. Participants’ ages ranged from 19 years to 22 years, with a median age of 20 y. Inclusion criteria required participants to have normal or corrected-to-normal vision, confirmed through Ishihara colour vision tests administered prior to participation.⁵⁰ They possessed basic ceramic knowledge but no strong pre-existing colour preferences towards the tested glaze colour that might bias evaluations. These selection criteria were consistent with best practices in material perception research to ensure reliable and unbiased subjective assessments.³² All participants provided written informed consent, and the study adhered to the ethical guidelines of Huaqiao University.

2.4 Equipment and environment

The experiment was conducted in a controlled optical laboratory environment, specifically designed for lighting-perception studies (see Figure 2). The laboratory was equipped with blackout curtains and featured a matte black background to minimize extraneous light reflections and ensure a dark, surround-adapted state between trials. Environmental conditions were maintained at a constant temperature of 22 ± 1°C and a relative humidity of 50 ± 5% RH to ensure environmental stability.

Figure 2

The controlled optical laboratory settings

The primary illumination source was the THOUSLITE LED Cube spectral tunable lighting system. This system, measuring 1020 × 740 × 860 mm³, utilizes 14 discrete LED channels covering the spectral range of 380 nm to 780 nm. Controlled via LED Navigator software (Version 6.3.70606), this system is capable of precisely generating desired SPD and CCTs. For this study, it was used to generate the eight target CCTs while maintaining a constant illuminance of 150 lx and ensuring controlled light quality metrics (|D_uv| ≤ 0.002, CRI R_a ≥ 94, TM-30 R_f ≥ 96 and controlled gamut) as described in Table 1. Illuminance was fixed at 150 lx, consistent with Chinese national standards for light-stable artefacts⁵¹ and international conservation guidelines.^28,52 This value represents a mid-range setting commonly used in Chinese museum exhibitions for ceramic collections, enabling isolation of chromatic CCT effects without luminance confounds.

Spectral characteristics of all light sources, including SPD (see Figure 3), CCT, CIE 1931 chromaticity coordinates (x, y), D_uv, colour rendering index (CRI), special CRI for red samples (R₉), and IES TM-30-18 fidelity index (R_f) and gamut index (R_g), were measured using a THOUSLITE FS spectroradiometer (Thousand Lights Lighting (Changzhou) Limited, Changzhou, China) with a wavelength range of 380 nm to 780 nm. The spectroradiometer was positioned at the participant’s viewing location (550 mm from the sample surface) to accurately characterize the actual lighting conditions experienced during the experiment. All measurements were conducted after dark-field calibration to ensure measurement accuracy. The specimen was positioned on a 360° rotating turntable with light-absorbing fabric. The turntable’s rotation could be paused by the participant.

Figure 3

The SPD of eight lighting conditions

2.5 Procedure

Participants first received comprehensive standardized instructions on the experimental procedure and the use of the semantic rating scales. Prior to the experiment, participants underwent a 600 s training session using calibration samples representing the full range of each perceptual dimension to minimize stimulus range effects. Following the provision of informed consent, they were seated at a fixed viewing distance of 550 mm and a visual angle of about 30° relative to the specimen plane. The experimental environment was controlled with neutral grey surroundings (N7) and ambient light shielding to prevent extraneous visual cues. The experiment began with a familiarization period, during which participants were exposed to each of the eight CCT conditions in a randomized order for approximately 3 s each to allow adaptation to the range of lighting variations. For each subsequent experimental trial, participants were instructed to observe the rotating specimen for 60 s. After the observation period, they rated the specimen on the five perceptual dimensions using 7-point semantic differential scales. The poles of the scales were clearly defined: Glossiness (1 = Very Matte, 7 = Very Glossy), Translucency (1 = Very opaque, 7 = Very translucent), Roughness (1 = Very smooth, 7 = Very rough), Temperature (1 = Very cold, 7 = Very warm) and Relief Perception (1 = Very flat, 7 = Very relief). To prevent scale compression effects, participants were explicitly instructed to utilize the full range of the scale when appropriate. Participants recorded their ratings using paper questionnaires with a pencil.

The CCT presentation order across the main trials was counterbalanced using a Latin square design across participants to minimize potential order effects. A 20 s dark adaptation period was enforced between the presentation of each CCT condition. Additionally, a standardized reference specimen under neutral illumination (4000 K) was presented at the beginning of each session and after every three trials to recalibrate participants’ internal scales and prevent drift effects. Each experimental session lasted about 720 s per participant. To assess intra-participant reliability, each participant repeated one randomly selected CCT condition at the end of the experimental session.

2.6 Statistical analysis

Prior to the main analyses, we assessed the reliability of participants’ perceptual ratings to ensure data quality. Intra-participant reliability was quantified using Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the original and repeated measurements across the five perceptual dimensions, which was calculated using Equation (1).

r_{i} = \frac{\sum_{j = 1}^{k} (X_{ij}^{(1)} - X_{i}^{(1)}) (X_{ij}^{(2)} - X_{i}^{(2)})}{\sqrt{\sum_{j = 1}^{k} {(X_{ij}^{(1)} - X_{i}^{(1)})}^{2}} \sqrt{\sum_{j = 1}^{k} {(X_{ij}^{(2)} - X_{i}^{(2)})}^{2}}}

(1)

where $X_{ij}^{(1)}$ and $X_{ij}^{(2)}$ denote the original and repeated ratings of participant i on dimension j, and k = 5.

Following established guidelines,⁵³ all participants with reliability coefficients r ≥ 0.50 were included in all subsequent analyses to ensure adequate within-subject measurement consistency. Inter-participant reliability was evaluated using Equation (2) to calculate the degree of agreement across participants.

α = \frac{k}{k - 1} (1 \frac{\sum_{j = 1}^{k} σ_{j}^{2}}{σ_{T}^{2}})

(2)

where k is the number of dimensions, $σ_{j}^{2}$ is the variance of dimension j and $σ_{T}^{2}$ is the variance of summed scores. Detailed reliability results are reported in Table 2.

Table 2

Summary of reliability analyses

Reliability metric	Value	Interpretation
Mean intra-participant reliability (r)	0.74	Good consistency
Range of intra-participant r	0.52–0.94	Moderate to excellent⁵³
Participants excluded (r < 0.50)	0 out of 30	–
Final sample size	30	–
Inter-participant reliability (α)	0.27	Substantial individual differences⁵⁴

Intra-participant reliability was computed via Pearson correlation between original and repeated measurements across five dimensions. Inter-participant reliability was computed via Cronbach's alpha across all dimensions and participants.

Subjective ratings for the five perceptual dimensions under each experimental condition and participant demographics were digitized using a double-entry verification process to minimize input errors. Data were screened for outliers using Mahalanobis distance (p < 0.001), and normality of distributions was assessed using Shapiro-Wilk tests. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each perceptual dimension across all experimental conditions and participant groups.

To evaluate the adequacy of our sample size, we conducted a post hoc power analysis using G*Power 3.1,⁵⁵ Based on the main effect of CCT on translucency (partial η² = 0.148, F(7, 203) = 4.863, p < 0.001), we calculated Cohen’s f = 0.417. For a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with eight measurement occasions, 30 participants, α = 0.05, and assuming a conservative correlation among repeated measures of r = 0.5, the achieved power was 0.95, substantially exceeding the conventional 0.80 threshold.⁵⁶ This high power confirms that our sample size was adequate to detect the effects observed in this study.

The primary analysis used mixed-design ANOVA with CCT as the within-subjects factor and gender as the between-subjects factor. Mauchly’s test of sphericity was conducted, and Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied to the degrees of freedom when the assumption of sphericity was violated. Significant interaction effects were analysed using simple main effects analyses. Bonferroni adjustments controlled family-wise error rates. Effect sizes were calculated using partial eta squared.

To specifically assess the nature (linear or non-linear) of CCT’s influence on the five perceptual dimensions of Jun porcelain, repeated-measures ANOVA with polynomial contrasts was conducted. All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1 Descriptive statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics revealed systematic variations in perceptual response across CCT levels (Figure 4). As CCT increased from 2700 K to 6000 K, participants reported higher levels of translucency (mean scores ranging from 3.2 to 4.5), glossiness (4.1 to 5.0) and roughness (3.9 to 5.0). Conversely, temperature perception showed a pronounced decrease with increasing CCT (dropping from 5.4 to 2.1), reflecting the well-established association between lower CCTs and warmer perceptions. Relief perception remained relatively stable across CCT conditions (ranging from 3.2 to 3.8), suggesting this dimension may be less influenced by lighting temperature.

Figure 4

Mean subjective responses for five perceptual attributes of the ceramic specimens under varying CCT. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean

3.2 Effects of CCT, gender and their interaction on perceptual dimensions

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to examine the effects of CCT, gender and their interaction on various perception dimensions (see Table 3).

Table 3

Results of MANOVA

Perception dimension	Source of variation	df	SS	MS	F	p	Partial η²
Glossiness	Main effect: gender	1	0.188	0.188	0.179	0.696	0.006
	Main effect: CCT	7	23.829	3.404	2.79	0.009	0.091
	Interaction: gender × CCT	7	9.396	1.342	1.1	0.365	0.038
Translucency	Main effect: gender	1	0.052	0.052	0.089	0.768	0.003
	Main effect: CCT	7	48.2	6.886	4.863	0.000	0.148
	Interaction: gender × CCT	7	26.783	3.826	2.702	0.011	0.088
Roughness	Main effect: gender	1	0.117	0.117	0.153	0.699	0.005
	Main effect: CCT	7	28.896	4.128	2.98	0.005	0.096
	Interaction: gender × CCT	7	22.229	3.176	2.293	0.029	0.076
Temperature	Main effect: gender	1	0.792	0.792	3.177	0.086	0.102
	Main effect: CCT	7	/	/	11.698	0.000	0.788
	Interaction: gender × CCT	7	/	/	3.951	0.006	0.557
Relief perception	Main effect: gender	7	/	/	13.667	0.001	0.328
	Main effect: CCT	7	6.196	0.885	0.591	0.763	0.021
	Interaction: gender × CCT	7	19.062	2.723	1.919	0.085	0.061

3.2.1 Glossiness

There was a significant main effect of CCT on glossiness, F(7, 196) = 2.79, p = 0.009, partial η² = 0.091. Neither the main effect of gender, F(1, 28) = 0.179, p = 0.696, nor the interaction between gender and CCT, F(7, 196) = 1.10, p = 0.365, reached statistical significance.

3.2.2 Translucency

The main effect of CCT was significant, F(7, 196) = 4.86, p < 0.001, with a moderate effect size (partial η² = 0.148). A significant interaction between gender and CCT was observed, F(7, 196) = 2.70, p = 0.011; partial η² = 0.088, indicating that the effect of CCT on translucency differed between males and females. No significant main effect of gender was found, F(1, 28) = 0.089, p = 0.768.

3.2.3 Roughness

CCT significantly affected perceived roughness, F(7, 196) = 2.98, p = 0.005, partial η² = 0.096. Furthermore, the gender-by-CCT interaction was significant, F(7, 196) = 2.29, p = 0.029, partial η² = 0.076, indicating differential effects between male and female participants. The main effect of gender alone was not significant, F(1, 28) = 0.153, p = 0.699.

3.2.4 Temperature

The main effect of CCT on temperature perception was highly significant, F(7, 196) = 11.70, p < 0.001, with a large effect size (partial η² = 0.788). In addition, the interaction between gender and CCT was statistically significant, F(7, 196) = 3.95, p = 0.006, partial η² = 0.557, suggesting that gender moderates the effect of CCT on temperature perception. The main effect of gender was marginal but not statistically significant, F(1, 28) = 3.177, p = 0.086.

3.2.5 Relief perception

A significant main effect of gender on relief perception was found, F(7, 196) = 13.667, p = 0.001, partial η² = 0.328. Neither the main effect of CCT, F(7, 196) = 0.591, p = 0.763, nor the gender by CCT interaction, F(7, 196) = 1.919, p = 0.085, reached significance.

The results indicate that CCT has a consistent and statistically significant effect on glossiness, translucency, roughness and temperature, with the strongest influence observed on temperature as indicated by a very large effect size (partial η² = 0.788). Significant interactions between gender and CCT on translucency, roughness and temperature perception suggest that the perception of these dimensions varies by gender under different CCT conditions. Gender alone significantly influenced relief perception, but not other perception dimensions.

3.3 Trends in perceptual responses across CCT levels

The analysis revealed that among the five perceptual dimensions assessed, four showed significant linear trends with increasing CCT: temperature, translucency, roughness and glossiness (all F(1, 28) ≥ 12.93, p ≤ 0.001). The effect sizes for these linear trends varied, with temperature showing the strongest linear relationship (partial η² = 0.78), followed by translucency (partial η² = 0.32), roughness (partial η² = 0.35) and glossiness (partial η² = 0.41). The plots in Figure 4 visually represent these trends, illustrating a general increase or decrease in perceptual ratings as CCT increases. Conversely, the analysis showed that relief perception exhibited neither a significant linear nor a significant non-linear trend across the CCT levels tested (p > 0.05), indicating its relative stability to changes in spectral composition within the range of 2700 K to 6000 K. Collectively, these findings suggest that the influence of CCT on the perception of most Jun porcelain properties is predominantly linear within the tested range, with relief perception being largely unaffected. This linearity indicates that perceptual changes occur in a predictable and proportional manner in response to CCT adjustments.

4. Discussion

This study investigated the effects of CCT on multiple perceptual dimensions of Jun porcelain, examining possible relationships, differential sensitivity across dimensions and gender moderation effects. Our findings reveal several important insights into the complex interplay between lighting conditions and ceramic material perception, with significant implications for both theory development and practical applications.

4.1 Linear effects of CCT on multiple dimensions of Jun porcelain perception

Contrary to our initial hypothesis regarding non-linear effects, our results demonstrate predominantly linear relationships between systematically varied CCT levels (2700 K to 6000 K) and four of the five perceptual dimensions examined. Glossiness, translucency, roughness and temperature perception all exhibited significant linear trends as CCT increased. This strong linearity was particularly evident in temperature perception (partial η² = 0.788), indicating that the thermal qualities of Jun porcelain are perceived in direct proportion to CCT variations within this range.

The observed linearity for dimensions like temperature can be mechanistically explained by the direct correlation between CCT and the SPD of the illuminant, particularly in the red-yellow versus blue regions of the spectrum. Lower CCTs are richer in longer wavelengths (red/yellow), which are perceptually associated with warmth, while higher CCTs are richer in shorter wavelengths (blue), associated with coolness.⁵⁷ The human visual system, particularly the koniocellular layers of the lateral geniculate nucleus and downstream cortical areas, is highly sensitive to changes in the blue-yellow axis.^58,59 This fundamental neural processing pathway likely underpins the robust and linear change in temperature as CCT shifts. Similarly, other dimensions like glossiness and translucency, which rely partly on the interaction of light with the material surface and subsurface, are influenced by the spectral composition of the incident light. Higher CCTs, with their increased blue light component, can enhance the perception of translucency by interacting more readily with scattering centres within the ceramic body.⁶⁰ The linear trends observed for these dimensions suggest that within the CCT range studied, the visual system integrates these spectral cues in a relatively consistent, dose-dependent manner.

However, our results stand in contrast to studies reporting non-linear perceptual responses to CCT in other material domains, such as the textile perception work by Fairchild and Johnson.⁶¹ This discrepancy underscores the critical role of material structure and composition in mediating lighting-perception relationships.³ Jun porcelain, characterized by its unique thick glaze and often subtle internal structures (like worm tracks or jigger marks), interacts with light differently than fibrous or woven materials. The glaze’s properties – its spectral reflectance, refractive index and opacity – govern how the incident light’s SPD translates into the light reflected and scattered towards the observer’s eye. For materials like textiles, complex surface microstructures and scattering properties can lead to more complex, potentially non-linear, perceptual responses to changes in illumination direction or spectral composition.⁶² Our findings suggest that the optical properties of Jun porcelain glaze and body promote a more direct, linear translation of CCT variations into changes in perceived glossiness, translucency, roughness and particularly temperature.

Conversely, relief perception showed no significant linear or non-linear trend across the tested CCT range (p > 0.05). This lack of sensitivity is likely because the perception of three-dimensional form and relief, such as the undulating surface texture of Jun ware, primarily relies on geometric cues derived from shading, cast shadows, binocular disparity and motion parallax rather than spectral information.⁶³ While changes in CCT alter the colour of the light, they do not fundamentally change the distribution of light and shadow across the object’s surface in a way that significantly impacts the perception of its relief structure. This highlights the domain-specificity of lighting effects on material perception and sets the stage for understanding differential sensitivity across dimensions.

For lighting design in museums and galleries, these findings imply that while CCT adjustments are highly effective for modulating the perceived warmth, translucency and subtle surface characteristics (like glossiness and roughness) of Jun porcelain, they are not a primary tool for emphasizing its three-dimensional sculptural qualities. To enhance relief perception, lighting strategies should instead focus on manipulating the directionality and spatial distribution of light to create strong modelling and shadows.²⁷ The predictable linear effects on other dimensions mean that precise CCT specification can be used as a reliable method to systematically shift specific perceptual qualities of Jun porcelain. For instance, lower CCT values (2700 K to 3500 K) were statistically associated with higher perceived warmth, while higher CCT values (4000 K to 5000 K) were associated with greater perceived translucency. These relationships offer curators an evidence-based basis for CCT selection when specific perceptual outcomes are desired.

The linearity in these relationships has important implications for both theoretical understanding and practical applications. As Xiao et al. noted, linear relationships between lighting parameters and perception facilitate more straightforward predictive frameworks and planning approaches for display and exhibition settings.⁶⁴ Our findings extend this understanding specifically to traditional Chinese ceramics, which have rarely been studied in controlled lighting conditions. The linear relationship we observed allows lighting designers to anticipate how adjustments in CCT will influence specific perceptual dimensions of Jun porcelain. Museums and galleries can implement straightforward CCT adjustment protocols to emphasize specific perceptual dimensions. For exhibition spaces seeking to highlight the traditional warm aesthetic of Jun porcelain, lower CCT values (2700 K to 3500 K) are recommended, aligning with Cuttle’s conservation-sensitive lighting recommendations that balance visibility with material preservation.¹ For educational displays focusing on technical properties, higher CCT values (4000 K to 5000 K) would optimize translucency perception while maintaining acceptable colour rendering (R_a > 90), as suggested by Schanda et al.’s museum lighting framework.²

4.2 Differential sensitivity across material properties to CCT

Our findings demonstrated a distinct hierarchy in perceptual sensitivity to CCT variations, perfectly aligning with Nishida’s modular theory of material perception.⁴¹ Rather than being arbitrary, this pattern reflects how different visual features are encoded by the human visual system and interact uniquely with the illuminant’s spectral composition. The dominant sensitivity of temperature perception underscores the prominence of the direct neural pathways processing blue-yellow spectral shifts, meaning even subtle CCT adjustments can dramatically alter the perceived thermal quality of the porcelain.

By contrast, attributes relying on complex light-matter interactions at the surface and subsurface – namely translucency, roughness and glossiness – demonstrated only moderate sensitivity. As shorter wavelengths (prevalent at higher CCTs) scatter more readily within a translucent medium,⁶⁵ CCT modulates the perception of depth and internal structure. Similarly, the incident SPD interacts with the glaze’s reflectance properties to subtly shift the colour of specular highlights and diffuse reflections.³ However, their sensitivity is moderate rather than extreme because these dimensions are simultaneously constrained by the physical geometry of the specimen (e.g. the shape of specular highlights).

Most notably, the perception of macroscopic relief proved entirely robust against spectral variations. Because the visual system constructs three-dimensional form primarily through geometric cues – such as shading gradients, cast shadows and binocular disparity⁶⁶– changes in CCT do not fundamentally alter the necessary spatial luminance distributions. Consequently, underlying geometric cues remain largely invariant across different CCT levels, confirming that shape-from-shading mechanisms are decoupled from chromatic variations.⁶² This mechanistic divergence clearly dictates the boundary of CCT’s utility in exhibition lighting.

The differential sensitivities observed across dimensions also produce predictable patterns in how these dimensions co-vary under changing lighting conditions. Dimensions showing similar directional responses to CCT increases (e.g. translucency and glossiness both increasing, while perceived temperature decreases) will naturally show consistent patterns across experimental conditions, reflecting their shared responsiveness to spectral variations rather than intrinsic perceptual interdependencies. Conversely, relief perception’s independence from CCT effects means it remains decoupled from the other dimensions under spectral lighting changes, reinforcing its reliance on geometric rather than chromatic visual cues.

For lighting designers and museum professionals, these findings offer practical guidance for emphasizing specific material qualities through selective lighting manipulation. Curators seeking to highlight the translucent qualities of Jun porcelain – a historically significant aesthetic dimension of this ceramic tradition⁶⁷– should prioritize CCT adjustments, as this dimension shows moderate sensitivity to spectral changes. Conversely, exhibition designers aiming to emphasize the three-dimensional surface relief of Jun ware are advised to prioritise adjustments in lighting directionality rather than CCT, as relief perception was found to be statistically insensitive to CCT variations in this study.⁵⁸ Additionally, retail environments selling fine ceramics could strategically employ higher CCT values (5000 K to 6000 K) to enhance perceived translucency while using focused directional lighting to accentuate three-dimensional surface qualities.

4.3 Gender moderation effects

Our third key finding revealed significant gender-by-CCT interactions for the perception of translucency, roughness and temperature perception of Jun porcelain. These interactions signify that the impact of spectral variations (as modulated by CCT) on the perception of these specific material properties differs between male and female observers. Furthermore, a significant main effect of gender was observed on relief perception (partial η² = 0.328), independent of CCT variations.

The pronounced gender difference in how CCT influences temperature (the largest interaction effect observed) aligns with the literature indicating gender-based differences in processing spectral stimuli.⁶⁸ Potential explanations include neurobiological differences in visual pathways or differences in learned associations.^68,69 For the temperature of a material, this might manifest as different weighting or sensitivity to the blue-yellow opponent signal, which is directly affected by CCT. Females have sometimes shown greater sensitivity to chromatic differences in certain parts of the spectrum,⁴³ which could contribute to differential responses to CCT shifts when evaluating the thermal qualities of a surface.

The significant gender-by-CCT interactions observed for translucency and roughness perception are more complex and suggest gender differences in how spectral cues are integrated with other visual information (e.g. luminance gradients, specular reflections) to form these complex material percepts. Translucency perception relies heavily on how light scatters within the material subsurface, a process that is spectrally dependent.⁶⁵ Roughness perception from vision is influenced by the microstructure of the surface and how it interacts with light reflection, which can also have a spectral component. It is plausible that males and females exhibit differential attentional biases towards spectral versus geometric cues when judging these properties, or they may weight these cues differently during perceptual integration.³ For example, if one gender relies relatively more on spectral cues (affected by CCT) and the other more on geometric cues (less affected by CCT) for judging translucency or roughness, this would result in a gender-dependent response to CCT variations. While research directly linking gender to spectral cue weighting in material perception is limited, studies on gender and object recognition or texture perception have noted differences in feature processing strategies.⁷⁰

The significant main effect of gender on relief perception, independent of CCT, reinforces that certain visual abilities are differentially distributed between genders. As discussed in relation to spatial cognition,⁷¹ processing three-dimensional form and spatial relationships can show gender-based variability. In lighting design practice, these gender moderation effects highlight the importance of considering visitor demographics when illuminating ceramic displays. Since temperature shows the strongest interaction, specifying CCT in public spaces should account for potential differential experiences. For exhibitions aiming for universal appeal, selecting moderate CCT values (e.g. 3500 K to 4500 K) might minimize the range of temperature variation between genders compared to the extremes of 2700 K or 6000 K. For properties like translucency and roughness, understanding that CCT’s effect is gender-dependent suggests that a multi-parameter approach involving strategic directional and intensity variations, in addition to CCT, might be necessary to achieve consistent perceptual effects across all visitors. Ultimately, the presence of gender-specific CCT sensitivities in some material properties underscores the potential benefit of tunable lighting systems in museum and gallery environments, enabling flexible adjustments that could potentially optimize the viewing experience for diverse audiences or specific exhibition goals.

These gender effects have substantial implications for inclusive design practices in exhibition spaces. Given the well-documented sex differences in the human visual system⁴³ and gender-related variations in colour preference,^38,68 gender-based perceptual differences necessitate more nuanced approaches to lighting design for public art and historical artifact display. Museum curators might consider implementing adjustable or zone-based lighting systems that accommodate diverse perceptual tendencies, particularly for exhibitions focusing on ceramic traditions where translucency and thermal qualities feature prominently in aesthetic appreciation. Commercial environments might similarly benefit from lighting solutions that appeal to diverse perceptual tendencies, potentially increasing engagement across demographic segments.

4.4 Limitations

While this study provides valuable insights, several limitations warrant consideration. First, the present study examined CCT levels of 2700 K, 3000 K, 3500 K, 4000 K and 5000 K, while 6500 K was deliberately excluded. This decision was motivated by practical considerations of museum lighting practice. Nonetheless, the omission of 6500 K constrains the completeness of the CCT spectrum investigated and may limit the generalizability of the dose–response relationships reported here. Future studies should extend the CCT range to include 6500 K – and potentially beyond – to establish a more comprehensive understanding of CCT effects on the perceived material qualities of ceramics across the full range of commercially available light sources.

Second, our study manipulated CCT without explicitly holding colour rendition constant across conditions. Although we report comprehensive photometric and colourimetric characterization for all eight lighting conditions, variation in colour rendition properties (e.g. fidelity, gamut or hue-specific rendering) across CCT levels could potentially contribute to observed perceptual differences.^72,73 Future work would enable independent manipulation of CCT and specific colour rendition dimensions (e.g. $R_{f}$ , $R_{g}$ , hue-bin fidelity), thereby isolating their respective contributions to ceramic material perception.

Third, our focus on Jun porcelain, while providing deep insights into this ceramic tradition, limits generalizability to other ceramic types. Future research should encompass diverse ceramic traditions with varying glaze compositions (e.g. celadon, famille rose), firing techniques and surface characteristics to build a more comprehensive model of lighting-ceramic interactions.

Fourth, our participant sample was culturally homogeneous, which may limit broader applicability. Cross-cultural research has demonstrated perceptual differences between Eastern and Western observers,⁷⁴ suggesting cultural factors may moderate the observed effects. Additionally, participants’ prior experience with art, design, museum visiting or ceramic appraisal was not formally quantified or controlled. Domain expertise may influence sensitivity to subtle glaze-related cues (e.g. yao-bian colour transitions, crystalline textures) and evaluative criteria.^75,76 Future studies should systematically measure viewer expertise (e.g. using validated scales for art/design experience) and test whether expertise level moderates CCT effects on material perception, alongside gender and other individual-difference variables.

Finally, real-world validation through longitudinal studies in exhibition contexts would strengthen these laboratory findings. Such studies should assess visitor engagement and aesthetic preference under different lighting conditions to provide ecological validity for museum applications.

5. Conclusion

This study establishes that CCT exerts predominantly linear effects on four key perceptual dimensions of Jun porcelain – temperature, translucency, glossiness and roughness – while revealing significant gender-based variations in sensitivity patterns. Importantly, we identified differential sensitivity across these dimensions, with temperature perception showing the strongest response to CCT changes and gender-based moderation effects.

These findings make both theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically, they advance understanding of visual material perception by demonstrating the domain specificity of lighting–perception relationships for culturally significant ceramics, extending prior work on generic materials to heritage objects with complex optical properties. The observed gender differences highlight the importance of considering observer characteristics in perceptual models. Practically, the identified relationships provide immediately applicable, evidence-based guidelines for museum and gallery lighting design. These insights enable curators to strategically modulate perceptual experiences to align with exhibition narratives and conservation requirements.

By bridging perceptual science and cultural heritage practice, this research offers a replicable framework for investigating lighting effects on diverse material categories, supporting the optimization of illumination strategies that enhance aesthetic appreciation while respecting the integrity of ceramic artefacts.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to give great thanks to Professor Yan Li at the School of Fine Arts, Nanjing Normal University and Professor Daqing Zhu at the College of Information Science and Engineering, Huaqiao University for their contributions to experimental design.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the Project of Fujian Provincial Social Science Fund (No. FJ2025B238), Xiamen Natural Science Foundation Project (No. 3502Z202573039), Xiamen Natural Science Foundation Project (No. 3502Z202473049) and the Humanities and Social Sciences Research Project of the Ministry of Education (No. 24YJA760065).

Ethics statement

This study was approved by the Ethics Review Committee of the College of Mechanical Engineering and Automation, Huaqiao University (approval date: 5 October 2024). All participants provided written informed consent before participation.

Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process

During the preparation of this work, the authors used Sider to assist with generating ideas, enhancing clarity and improving the overall structure of the writing. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and took full responsibility for the content and references of the publication.

ORCID iD

M Wang

References

Cuttle

Light for Art’s Sake. 1st edition. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2007.

Schanda

Csuti

Szabo

A new concept of color fidelity for museum lighting: based on an experiment in the Sistine Chapel. Leukos 2016; 12: 71–77.

Fleming

RW.

Visual perception of materials and their properties. Vision Research 2014; 94: 62–75.

Serrano

Chen

Wang

, et al. The effect of shape and illumination on material perception. ACM Transactions on Graphics 2021; 40: 1–16.

Cuttle

Lighting works of art for exhibition and conservation. Lighting Research and Technology 1988; 20: 43–53.

Cuttle

A proposal to reduce the exposure to light of museum objects without reducing illuminance or the level of visual satisfaction of museum visitors. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 2000; 39: 229–244.

Scuello

Abramov

Gordon

, et al. Museum lighting: optimizing the illuminant. Color Research and Application 2004; 29: 121–127.

Scuello

Abramov

Gordon

, et al. Museum lighting: why are some illuminants preferred? Journal of the Optical Society of America A 2004; 21: 306–311.

Berns

RS.

Designing white-light LED lighting for the display of art: a feasibility study. Color Research and Application 2011; 36: 324–334.

10.

Durmus

Abdalla

Duis

, et al. Spectral optimization to minimize light absorbed by artwork. Leukos 2020; 16: 45–54.

11.

Huang

Liu

Pointer

, et al. Color quality evaluation of Chinese bronzeware in typical museum lighting. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 2020; 37: A170–A180.

12.

Tang

Dang

, et al. Color naturalness in museum lighting: optimizing ambient illuminance and light source parameters for Chinese freehand paintings. Color Research and Application 2026; 51: e70045.

13.

Feltrin

Leccese

Hanselaer

, et al. Impact of illumination correlated color temperature, background lightness, and painting color content on color appearance and appreciation of paintings. Leukos 2020; 16: 25–44.

14.

Lin

Jost-Boissard

Meuret

, et al. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of IES TM-30 indices for the color preference of landscape oil paintings. Leukos. First published 8 January 2026. DOI: 10.1080/15502724.2025.2566689

15.

Mundinger

Houser

Fine art under low illuminance: gamut and tint. Lighting Research and Technology 2024; 56: 570–592.

16.

Boyce

PR.

Human Factors in Lighting. CRC Press, 2003.

17.

Schanda

(Editor). Colorimetry: Understanding the CIE System. John Wiley & Sons, 2007.

18.

Fotios

A revised Kruithof graph based on empirical data. Leukos, 2017; 13: 3–17.

19.

Liu

Sun

Jing

, et al. How correlated color temperature (CCT) affects undergraduates: a psychological and physiological evaluation. Journal of Building Engineering 2022; 45: 103573.

20.

Brambilla

Samangouei

, et al. How correlated colour temperature manipulates human thermal perception and comfort. Building and Environment 2020; 177: 106929.

21.

Toftum

Thorseth

Markvart

, et al. Occupant response to different correlated colour temperatures of white LED lighting. Building and Environment 2018; 143: 258–268.

22.

Yao

Costanzo

, et al. The effects of the correlated colour temperature of light on thermal sensation in the built environment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Building and Environment 2025; 267: 112235.

23.

Palmer

SE.

Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology. MIT Press, 1999.

24.

Ojeda

Romero

Nieves

Understanding the effect of correlated colour temperatures on spatio-chromatic properties of natural images. Vision Research 2023; 208: 108234.

25.

Pastilha

Gupta

Gross

, et al. Temporal dynamics of daylight perception: detection thresholds. Journal of Vision 2020; 20: 18.

26.

Druzik

Michalski

SW.

Guidelines for Selecting Solid-State Lighting for Museums. Getty Conservation Institute, 2012.

27.

Loe

Rowlands

Watson

NF.

Preferred lighting conditions for the display of oil and watercolour paintings. Lighting Research and Technology 1982; 14: 173–192.

28.

Commission Internationale de l'Éclairage. Control of Damage to Museum Objects by Optical Radiation. CIE 157:2004. Vienna: CIE, 2004.

29.

Ubbelohde

Science and Civilization in China, Volume 5: Chemistry and Chemical Technology. Part IV: Spagyrical Discovery and Invention: Apparatus, Theories and Gifts. Cambridge University Press, 1981.

30.

, et al. New perspective on Jun glaze corrosion: study on the corrosion of light greenish blue and reddish purple glazes from Juntai Kiln, Yuzhou, Henan, China. Heritage Science 2020; 8: 2.

31.

Hou

Pradell

, et al. Jun ware glazes: chemistry, nanostructure and optical properties. Journal of the European Ceramic Society 2018; 38: 4290–4302.

32.

Fleming

Wiebel

Gegenfurtner

Perceptual qualities and material classes. Journal of Vision 2013; 13: 9.

33.

Enyuan

Yinfei

Yibing

, et al. Regional microstructural characteristics between the body and glaze of ancient Chinese ceramics. Ceramics International 2020; 46: 22253–22261.

34.

Hedges

RE.

Mössbauer spectroscopy of Chinese glazed ceramics. Nature 1975; 254: 501–503.

35.

Takarini

Gunawan

Hasratiningsih

, et al. Additive colours approach for dental ceramics translucency characteristics made from Sumatra and Java natural sands. Materials Research Express 2018; 5: 086406.

36.

Gao

Ceramic texture extraction method based on convolution neural network and image processing.

Proceedings of IEEE 4th Annual Flagship India Council International Subsections Conference (INDISCON), Mysore, India, 5–7 August 2023: 1–6.

37.

Cohen

Levy

Sex differences in categorization of tactile stimuli. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1986; 63: 83–86.

38.

Bonnardel

Beniwal

Dubey

, et al. Gender difference in color preference across cultures: an archetypal pattern modulated by a female cultural stereotype. Color Research and Application 2018; 43: 209–223.

39.

Bartlett

Camba

JD.

Gender differences in spatial ability: a critical review. Educational Psychology Review 2023; 35: 8.

40.

Wei

Houser

David

, et al. Colour gamut size and shape influence colour preference. Lighting Research and Technology 2017; 49: 992–1014.

41.

Nishida

SY.

Image statistics for material perception. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2019; 30: 94-99.

42.

Abramov

Gordon

Feldman

, et al. Sex and vision II: color appearance of monochromatic lights. Biology of Sex Differences 2012; 3: 1–15.

43.

Vanston

Strother

Sex differences in the human visual system. Journal of Neuroscience Research 2017; 95: 617–625.

44.

Zhai

Luo

Liu

XY.

The impact of illuminance and colour temperature on viewing fine art paintings under LED lighting. Lighting Research and Technology 2015; 47: 795–809.

45.

Chen

Guan

, et al. Perceivable thresholds for distinguishing different CCTs: a preliminary study. Proceedings of 20th China International Forum on Solid State Lighting and 9th International Forum on Wide Bandgap Semiconductors (SSLCHINA: IFWS), Suzhou, China, 7–10 February 2023: 412–415.

46.

Royer

Wilkerson

Wei

, et al. Human perceptions of colour rendition vary with average fidelity, average gamut, and gamut shape. Lighting Research and Technology 2017; 49: 966–991.

47.

Gigilashvili

Thomas

Hardeberg

, et al. Translucency perception: a review. Journal of Vision 2021; 21: 4.

48.

Kandil

Abdelnabi

Hamdy

, et al. Home bleaching effects on the surface gloss, translucency, and roughness of CAD/CAM multi-layered ceramic and hybrid ceramic materials. Journal of Composites Science 2024; 8: 541.

49.

Sakamoto

Watanabe

Exploring tactile perceptual dimensions using materials associated with sensory vocabulary. Frontiers in Psychology 2017; 8: 569.

50.

Birch

Worldwide prevalence of red-green color deficiency. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 2012; 29: 313–320.

51.

Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China. Design Code for Museum Lighting. GB/T 23863-2009. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2009.

52.

Karlicek

Sun

Zissis

, et al. Handbook of Advanced Lighting Technology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2017.

53.

Koo

MY.

A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine 2016; 15: 155–163.

54.

Palmer

Schloss

Sammartino

Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual Review of Psychology 2013; 64: 77–107.

55.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

, et al. G* Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods 2007; 39: 175–191.

56.

Cohen

Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, NY: Routledge, 2013.

57.

Kwak

Hue and warm-cool feeling as the visual resemblance criteria for iso-CCT judgment. Color Research and Application 2019; 44: 176–183.

58.

Schweiger

Güth

Schubert

, et al. Predictable esthetics in all-ceramic restorations: translucency as a function of material thickness. International Journal of Computerized Dentistry 2021; 24: 147–155.

59.

Della Bona

Nogueira

Pecho

. Optical properties of CAD-CAM ceramic systems. Journal of Dentistry 2014; 42: 1202–1209.

60.

Ahn

Lee

YK.

Difference in the translucency of all-ceramics by the illuminant. Dental Materials 2008; 24: 1539–1544.

61.

Fairchild

Johnson

GM.

ICAM framework for image appearance, differences, and quality. Journal of Electronic Imaging 2004; 13: 126–138.

62.

Obein

Leroux

Viénot

Bidirectional reflectance distribution factor and gloss scales. Proceedings of Human Vision and Electronic Imaging VI (Vol. 4299), Photonics West 2001 – Electronic Imaging, San Jose, CA, USA, 8 June2001: 279–290.

63.

Parker

AJ.

Stereopsis and Depth Perception, 1st edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.

64.

Xiao

Walter

Gkioulekas

, et al. Looking against the light: how perception of translucency depends on lighting direction. Journal of Vision 2014; 14: 17.

65.

van de Hulst

HC.

Light Scattering by Small Particles. North Chelmsford, MA: Courier Corporation, 1981.

66.

Lovell

Bloj

Harris

JM.

Optimal integration of shading and binocular disparity for depth perception. Journal of Vision 2012; 12: 1.

67.

Kompier

Smolders

KCHJ

de Kort

YAW

. The effect of dynamic correlated colour temperature changes on alertness and performance. Lighting Research and Technology 2018; 50: 1070–1081.

68.

Hurlbert

Ling

Biological components of sex differences in color preference. Current Biology 2007; 17: R623–R625.

69.

Goodale

Milner

Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends in Neurosciences 1992; 15: 20–25.

70.

Prins

Kingdom

FA.

Detection and discrimination of texture modulations defined by orientation, spatial frequency, and contrast. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 2003; 20: 401–410.

71.

Halpern

DF.

Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.

72.

Royer

Wilkerson

Wei

Human perceptions of colour rendition at different chromaticities. Lighting Research and Technology 2018; 50: 965–994.

73.

Royer

Houser

Durmus

, et al. Recommended methods for conducting human factors experiments on the subjective evaluation of colour rendition. Lighting Research and Technology 2022; 54: 199–236.

74.

Segall

Campbell

Herskovits

MJ.

The Influence of Culture on Visual Perception. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966.

75.

Leder

Belke

Oeberst

, et al. A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology 2004; 95: 489–508.

76.

Pihko

Virtanen

Saarinen

, et al. Experiencing art: the influence of expertise and painting abstraction level. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2011; 5: 94.