37

These existing questions ask whether the blue lights, not blue light filters, from computer screens affect sleep:

My question is if blue light filters, not blue lights, have been shown to make sleep harder, and not just having any impact, contrary to its intention to make sleep easier.

A 9to5Google article says:

The University of Manchester published a study (via the Guardian) that found blue light filters may actually trick our brains into thinking it’s daytime, exactly the thing they were designed to avoid.

AndroidAuthority also reports the story, and mentions the study was done on mice.

warren
  • 996
  • 2
  • 10
  • 23
BCLC
  • 469
  • 4
  • 15
  • 1
    A discussion about what constitutes a "blue light filter" has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/111528/discussion-on-question-by-bclc-are-blue-light-filters-not-blue-lights-on-phone), as it's no longer necessary (OP clarified the question). – tim Aug 07 '20 at 06:45

1 Answers1

58

This is the study itself if you want to read it. Yes it is a study in mice. It is evidence but not proof that blue filters are counter-productive, at least according to the authors of this single, peer-reviewed study. This is a fairly typical example of media fixating on a single study and making it out to a bigger deal than it actually is. More research is needed.

Brian Z
  • 7,194
  • 1
  • 29
  • 48
  • Oh thanks so there's pretty much just this 1 study so far and so the status quo that blue light filter is helpful (or at least not harmful) still stands? – BCLC Aug 03 '20 at 17:53
  • 8
    @BCLC I'd only say yes if there are other studies showing that these filters are effective, but I've not really looked in to that and don't know if that's the case. – Brian Z Aug 03 '20 at 18:00
  • oh yeah i didn't say 'just this 1 study'. i said 'pretty much just this 1 study'. hmmm... probably same thingy. thanks! – BCLC Aug 04 '20 at 03:55
  • @BCLC Just because there is only 1 study doesn't mean the status quo is that blue light is helpful at all. If there is only 1 study done on this and the 1 study says it was bad for mice then if anything you should err on the side of this being bad for humans (not jump to the conclusion and start campaigning to ban screens but there is no harm in holding back from staring at a screen just before bed). – Lio Elbammalf Aug 04 '20 at 08:12
  • oh wait i misread your comment. i mean before this study, the default/the status quo/the common knowledge/the mutual knowledge/whatever is that blue light filter is helpful or at least not harmful right? or what? – BCLC Aug 04 '20 at 10:24
  • 13
    Note that this study compares light of **equal intensity**. At least when I use the blue light filter on my Android device, I use it to lower the screen brightness by (partially) cutting out 2/3 of the light emitting pixels (i.e. the ones not red). This is useful because in a completely dark room, the minimum brightness is still brighter than necessary. – Nobody Aug 04 '20 at 11:37
  • @LioElbammalf i think i was kind of unclear. i edited post. also please see my comment 'oh wait i misread your comment. i mean before this study, the default/the status quo/the common knowledge/the mutual knowledge/whatever is that blue light filter is helpful or at least not harmful right? or what?' i mistakenly thought your comment was from Brian Z. thanks for commenting. – BCLC Aug 04 '20 at 22:32
  • 1
    @BCLC You're right - I'd misread in this case. My brain seems to have missed out the word 'filter' from everything and believe we were talking about the blue light itself. – Lio Elbammalf Aug 05 '20 at 08:15
  • Is it really acceptable to directly link to Sci-Hub on any Stack Exchange site? – Ruslan Aug 05 '20 at 12:43
  • 3
    Hmm, apparently, Sci-Hub somehow breaks the usual public opinion (that I met online) of copyright infringement as bad: see e.g. [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/87716/11519). As for SE policy, it appears to be OK: see [this discussion](https://space.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1033/775). – Ruslan Aug 05 '20 at 13:05
  • @LioElbammalf It's not your fault. I made a mistake in misreading the other questions above. Oddthinking♦ , gen-z ready to perish and user253751 were also confused as in comments on question post. I'm surprised I got only 2 downvotes. I guess I'm lucky the edits came in before more people saw this question. – BCLC Aug 05 '20 at 15:00
  • @ruslan I thought the usual public opinion of copyright infringement could be summarized as: nice, I get free movies – user253751 Aug 10 '20 at 18:02
  • @user253751 well, too many times I came across threads talking about copying as "stealing" in full seriousness. – Ruslan Aug 10 '20 at 18:06
  • 1
    OP: Besides the fact that light intensity would be a parameter, it is quite reasonable that our eyes and brain react to the same light in the sane way. If the spectra of the impinging light would be similar, the effect they may have would be certainly the same. – Alchimista Aug 19 '20 at 19:03
  • @BCLC why I should tag OP? I am skeptical about.... – Alchimista Jan 01 '21 at 08:55
  • @Alchimista you said 'OP: ' this suggests you are intending for OP to read the message following the colon ? – BCLC Jan 01 '21 at 09:05
  • @BCLC I mean that OP gets notification anyway. – Alchimista Jan 01 '21 at 12:38
  • @BCLC it seems to me that whatever happens in a question one has opened is notified to him/her. Perhaps I will have to change habit. New is relative. I am on SE since three if not five years. Fortunately it wasn't so important. Thank for the suggestion. – Alchimista Jan 01 '21 at 16:30
  • oh that is so weird of me. not sure what i was thinking but it's like... i just saw 239 rep and thought you were new. actually 239 is so far from the default 100. lol. you're not new. but perhaps new to this feature. deleted comments @Alchimista – BCLC Jan 01 '21 at 16:49