2007, Piran, Slovenia

Thermal comfort
comfortable”), where 0 means “neutral”. The setting of the dial produced a voltage which was
continuously recorded. Core temperature was measured with a telemetry system
(CoreTemp2000, HTI Technologies, Inc.). For this measurement a transmitter pill was
swallowed 1.5 hour before the initiation of the experiment. Skin temperature was measured
with copper-constantan thermocouples at forehead, chest, abdomen, back, arm, forearm, hand,
thigh, lower leg, and foot for the calculation of mean skin temperature, and at two points
under each stimulated area. The regional characteristics in temperature related sensations
were analyzed using one-way repeated-measures ANOVA, with differences isolated using
Tukey’s HSD statistic, and a null hypothesis was rejected at the level of P < 0.05.
Experiment 2 (mild cold exposure): Temperature stimulation tests same as those in
Experiment 1 were made at a room temperature of 21-22 . This series of experiments was
performed in the period from February to March, 2007. Ten healthy male subjects
participated in this study. All the experimental protocols were the same as the Experimental 1.
RESULTS
Experiment 1: Figure 1 shows typical example of local warming and cooling of four body
regions. At the basal condition, just before the stimulation of each area, subjects reported
“hot” (mean ±S.E.M. 1.8 ±0.2) and “uncomfortable” (-1.3 ±0.2) for whole-body sensation,
and “slightly hot” (face: 1.0 ±0.3, chest: 0.7 ±0.2, abdomen: 0.5 ±0.2, thigh: 0.5 ±0.2) and
“slightly uncomfortable” (face: -1.4 ±0.4, chest: -0.7 ±0.2, abdomen: -0.7 ±0.2, thigh: -0.5
±0.2) for local sensation of the stimulated area. These sensations did not significantly differ
among the four areas. At 90 sec after the start of local cold stimulation local temperature
sensation did not significantly differ among the four areas. But for local thermal
comfort/discomfort at the same time point, thermal comfort was strongest for the face, and
significant difference existed between the face (4.1 ±0.9) and the abdomen (0.1 ±1.3). It is
interesting that, although subjects were in uncomfortably hot condition of the whole body,
little comfort was elicited by abdominal cooling. As for the local warming, local temperature
sensation significantly differed among the four areas. The face showed the strongest hot
sensation (6.2 ±0.7). Likewise, the facial warming produced the strongest local discomfort (-
4.2 ±1.1), but it did not reach the significance level (P=0.051). There was a significant
difference among the scores of whole body discomfort depending on the areas stimulated, and
it was strongest during facial warming.
Experiment 2: At the basal condition without local stimulation subjects reported “cold” (-3.0
±0.2) and “uncomfortable” (-2.1 ±0.1) for whole body sensation, and almost “neutral” for
local temperature sensation (face: 0.1 ±0.1, chest: 0.1 ±0.2, abdomen: 0.1 ±0.1, thigh: 0.0
±0.1) and local thermal comfort/discomfort (face: 0.3 ±0.2, chest: 0.2 ±0.2, abdomen: 0.3
±0.2, thigh: 0.3 ±0.2) of the stimulated area. At 90 sec after the start of local cold stimulation,
local temperature sensation significantly differed among the four areas: that is, the facial
stimulus produced less cold sensation (-3.2 ±0.5) than the stimulation of abdomen (-4.4 ±0.6)
and thigh (-4.6 ±0.6). Likewise the face showed the least discomfort (-0.1 ±0.4) during the
cold stimulus among the four areas. In the case of local warming, there was no significant
difference in local temperature sensation among the four areas. But a significant difference
was observed for thermal comfort/discomfort. Thermal comfort was strongest for the
abdominal warming, and thermal comfort with facial warming (0.6 ±0.9) was significantly
smaller than that with chest (2.9 ±0.5) or abdominal warming (3.7 ±0.6).
369