Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµ

The neurological basis of visual discomfort and visual stress

01 - 02 February 2027 09:00 - 17:00 Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµ Free Watch online

Science+ meeting organised by Professor Arnold J Wilkins and Dr Beverley Burke

Visual discomfort/stress is common and can be debilitating. It has a neurological origin and can be predicted from the characteristics of the visual image. There are far-reaching implications for inclusivity, specifically regarding the design of buildings, lighting, text, and electronic images. There are also implications for health and the management of various neurological conditions.

Programme

The programme, including speaker biographies and abstracts, will be available soon. Please note that the programme may be subject to change.

Poster session

There will be a poster session on Monday 1 February 2027. If you would like to present a poster, , abstract (up to 200 words), author list, and the name of the proposed presenter and institution no later than Friday 1 January 2027. Acceptances may be made on a rolling basis so we recommend submitting as soon as possible in case the session becomes full. Submissions made within one month of the meeting may not be included in the programme booklet.

Attending the event

This event is intended for researchers in relevant fields.

  • Free to attend
  • Both virtual and in-person attendance is available. Advance registration is essential
  • Lunch is available on both days of the meeting for an optional £25 per day. There are plenty of places to eat nearby if you would prefer to purchase food offsite. Participants are welcome to bring their own lunch to the meeting

Please note that scientific meetings hosted by Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµ do not necessarily represent a Royal Society position or signify an endorsement of the speakers or content presented.

Enquiries: contact the Scientific Programmes team.

Organisers

  • Arnold Wilkins

    Professor Arnold J Wilkins

    Arnold J Wilkins obtained a doctorate in semantic memory from the University of Sussex. He then spent two years in postdoctoral study at the Montreal Neurological Institute. Here, he was asked to see a patient who had seizures whenever she looked at striped lines. He returned to the UK in 1974 to work at the MRC Applied Psychology Unit where he showed that many patients with photosensitive epilepsy are sensitive to striped lines, and that many people without epilepsy also find such patterns uncomfortable to look at. This resulted in a neurological theory of visual discomfort and the demonstration that fluorescent lighting can cause headaches. His interests include migraine, photophobia, trypophobia, lighting, reading, tinted lenses, and the design of text and architecture. In 1997 he moved to a chair at the University of Essex, where he is now Emeritus. He works part-time at the Engineering Department, University of Cambridge.

  • Beverley Burke

    Dr Beverley Burke

    Beverley Burke is a former Daphne Jackson Fellow who returned to part-time work after a career break. Her return was inspired by experiencing format-related reading difficulties which led her to research visual discomfort at Birkbeck, University of London. Prior to this, she completed her PhD in microbiology at City St George’s University of London and pursued interests in the cellular/molecular mechanisms of chronic health conditions such as neurodegeneration, hypertension and cancer. Her work has contributed to ~ 20 scientific publications but she believes her most significant accomplishment is facilitating cross-disciplinary communication between academic researchers and professional practitioners who share an interest in visual discomfort/stress. Beverley is passionate about visual neurodiversity and was appointed as deputy director of the Birkbeck Centre for Neurodiversity at Work. She believes that there is much work to be done with regards to understanding how spatial and temporal patterns of light effect human health and wellbeing.

Schedule

09:00-09:05 Welcome by Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµ and organisers
Professor Arnold J Wilkins

Professor Arnold J Wilkins

University of Essex, UK

Dr Beverley Burke

Dr Beverley Burke

Birkbeck, University of London, UK

09:05-09:20 Tbc
Professor Arnold J Wilkins

Professor Arnold J Wilkins

University of Essex, UK

09:20-09:40 Talk title tbc
Professor Paul Hibbard

Professor Paul Hibbard

University of Stirling, UK

09:40-10:00 Talk title tbc
Dr Olivier Penacchio

Dr Olivier Penacchio

Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain

10:00-10:20 Talk title tbc
10:20-10:40 Discussion
10:40-11:10 Break
11:10-11:30 Talk title tbc
11:30-11:50 Electrophysiological evidence for a noisy visual cortex in migraine – a basis for visual discomfort?

Migraine is a common and debilitating neurological disorder and is associated with more extreme visual discomfort compared to control groups. It has been suggested that there are inherent differences in the visual areas of the migraine brain in between headache attacks that might account for the increased visual discomfort. One suggestion is that the migraine brain is “noisier” than controls, leading to excessive brain activity and therefore increased visual discomfort. This neural noise is thought to arise from an imbalance of oscillatory activity (or “brainwaves”) that are responsible for processing information in the brain. To date, neural noise has mostly been inferred from behavioural studies. However, it is possible to estimate neural noise directly from measures of brain activity using electrophysiology (EEG). Here I present electrophysiological data from several studies of migraine and control participants to directly estimate neural noise to test this theory. Across studies, results indicate subtle but consistent indications that there is an imbalance in neural oscillations in people with migraine. This would be consistent with increased neural noise as a neurophysiological basis of excessive visual discomfort in migraine. A future direction for research is to explore possible interventions aimed at redressing an oscillatory imbalance, such as non-invasive brain stimulation techniques. Given that other neurodiverse populations have been associated with both visual discomfort and neural noise, it may be that neural noise could represent a more general marker of susceptibility to visual discomfort.

Dr Louise O'Hare

Dr Louise O'Hare

Nottingham Trent University, UK

11:50-12:10 Talk title tbc
12:10-12:30 Discussion

Chair

Petroc Sumner

Dr Petroc Sumner

Cardiff University, Wales

13:30-13:50 Talk title tbc
Dr Cathy Manning

Dr Cathy Manning

University of Birmingham, UK

13:50-14:10 Talk title tbc
14:10-14:30 Talk title tbc
14:30-14:50 Talk title tbc
14:50-15:10 Discussion
15:10-15:40 Break
15:40-16:00 Talk title tbc
Professor Isamu Motoyoshi

Professor Isamu Motoyoshi

University of Tokyo, Japan

16:00-16:20 Talk title tbc
Professor Christopher DiMattina

Professor Christopher DiMattina

Florida Gulf Coast University, US

16:20-16:35 Discussion
16:35-17:00 Poster flash session
17:00-18:00 Poster session and drinks reception

09:00-09:20 Talk title tbc
Dr Geoffrey Aguirre

Dr Geoffrey Aguirre

University of Pennsylvania, US

09:20-09:40 Talk title tbc
Dr Sanae Yoshimoto

Dr Sanae Yoshimoto

University of Hiroshima, Japan

09:40-10:00 Talk title tbc
10:00-10:20 Effects of temporal light modulation (or flicker) on visual processing

Flickering lights can induce headaches, seizures, discomfort, and illusions. Light emitting diodes (LEDs) can flicker and are widely used in homes, schools, offices, and cars. The brightness of LEDs can be controlled through pulse-width modulation, which generates temporal light modulation (TLM), at higher frequencies than standard mains electricity. This poses a potential problem because the visual system can resolve high frequency TLM (up to 15kHz) during saccades - the flicker appears as an illusory striped pattern known as the phantom array. The question then, is what are the effects of high frequency TLM on visual processing? We recently found that TLM at 600Hz can slow reading, particularly when individuals report high pattern glare. However, reading speed was slightly faster when under 120Hz (US AC rate) TLM compared to neighbouring frequencies, suggesting some adaptation to common frequencies that limits the negative effects. In addition, there was no relationship between the ability to detect the phantom array and reading speed. This suggests that TLM disrupts visual processing independently of conscious perception. LED TLM is currently unregulated (the IEEE guidelines lapsed March 2026), and these findings support calls for new regulations on lighting to mitigate the effects of TLM on health and cognition.

Dr Sarah Haigh

Dr Sarah Haigh

University of Nevada, US

10:20-10:35 Discussion
10:35-11:05 Break
11:05-11:25 Talk title tbc
Dr Hillevi Hemphälä

Dr Hillevi Hemphälä

Lund University, Sweden

11:25-11:45 Talk title tbc
11:45-12:05 Talk title tbc
12:05-12:25 Talk title tbc
Professor Ute Leonards

Professor Ute Leonards

University of Bristol, UK

12:25-12:40 Discussion

Chair

blank avatar

Professor Peter Allen

Anglia Ruskin University, UK

13:30-13:50 Talk title tbc
13:50-14:10 Talk title tbc
Ms Karen Monet

Ms Karen Monet

Opticalm Canada, Canada

14:10-14:30 Talk title tbc
14:30-14:50 Talk title tbc
14:50-15:10 Discussion
15:10-15:40 Break
15:40-16:00 Talk title tbc
Dr Aleks Mankowska

Dr Aleks Mankowska

University of Bradford, UK

16:00-16:20 Differential diagnosis of visual stress: a multi-stage review

Visual stress (VS) is increasingly used to describe abnormal visual discomfort and perceptual distortions in response to specific visual stimuli. This review uses a staged evidence-synthesis approach: an initial systematic review that identifies minimal core evidence is followed by a scoping review to map broader literature, and a narrative synthesis to integrate diverse sources.

Systematic review: PubMed/PsycInfo/Web of Science were searched for “Visual Stress” OR “Visual Discomfort” AND “Differential Diagnosis” revealing, five manuscripts. Four of these were relevant but none met the selection criteria (specification of: condition of interest, competing diagnoses, target population, and clinical verification method).

Scoping review: to determine the broader literature that might be relevant to differential diagnosis of VS. Key publications were used to identify the main symptoms and clinical signs of VS and the literature (including “grey sources”) was searched for other conditions associated with these symptoms and signs.

Narrative review: the third stage was a narrative review to estimate the likelihood of these conditions being mis-diagnosed as VS. Risk matrix methodology was used to juxtapose, for each condition, the probability of the condition being present with the severity/impact arising from an incorrect diagnosis of VS.

Overarching conclusions: highlight, for clinicians who diagnose and treat VS, the alternative diagnoses that need to be excluded. Conclusions will also consider, for researchers investigating VS, sensible precautions to maximise the probability that findings relate to VS and to demonstrate that the researchers have taken reasonable steps to avoid participant harm through erroneous diagnoses.

Professor Bruce Evans

Professor Bruce Evans

City St George's University of London, UK

16:20-16:30 Discussion
16:30-17:00 Panel discussion/overview
17:00-00:00 Close