Advertisement

Development and Evaluation of a Model of Human Comfort and Cognitive Ability for Moderate Differences in Thermal Environment

  • Shane T. MuellerEmail author
  • Yin-Yin (Sarah) Tan
  • Isaac Flint
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11786)

Abstract

Past research has established systematic effects of thermal stress on human comfort and cognitive performance. However, this research has primarily focused on extremes of temperature, ignoring moderate temperature ranges typically found in work environments and vehicles. Furthermore, models predicting the psychological impact of thermal environment have typically focused solely on perceived comfort, or when accounting for cognitive performance (e.g., Anno et al. 1996; Mueller et al. 2011) focused on in relatively extreme thermal conditions. As a consequence, there is limited empirical data, and no viable predictive models, for understanding the impact of moderate thermal stress on human comfort and performance. We report on an experimental study with 24 college-age participants that assessed cognitive performance (across a number of cognitive dimensions including manual dexterity, speed, dual-task performance, task switching, executive function, and attention), subjective measures of comfort and workload (including the CALM comfort scale, the affect grid, NASA-TLX, perceived effort, and other measures related to the thermal environment), and physiology (including heart rate, skin temperature, and breathing rate). Participants were tested during three 90-min sessions in a controlled thermal chamber in which the temperature was either cool (15 ºC/59 °F), room temperature (22.5 ºC/72.5 °F), or warm (30 ºC/86 ºF), during which they completed repeated rounds of comfort ratings, cognitive task performance, and rest. Results showed strong responses in physiological and comfort measures over time to differences in thermal environment. However, the thermal environment had differential effects on cognitive measures, with some producing little impairment, and others showing increases or decreases over time that were moderated by thermal environment. The results were examined within a latent variable model that suggests that comfort alone is not an adequate proxy for performance, even for moderate thermal stressors, and more complex predictive models are needed.

Keywords

Performance prediction Mental stressors Environmental conditions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a gift from the Ford Motor Company to the Michigan Tech Fund. We thank Megan Volaski and Lamia Alam for assisting in data collection, and John Elson for advice and guidance on the conduct of the research, and for comments on this and earlier drafts of this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Adams, J.A.: Warm-up decrement in performance on the pursuit-rotor. Am. J. Psychol. 65(3), 404–414 (1952)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ainsworth, B., Garner, M.: Attention control in mood and anxiety disorders: evidence from the antisaccade task. Hum. Psychopharmacol. Clin. Exp. 28(3), 274–280 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ammons, R.B.: Rotary pursuit apparatus: I. Survey of variables. Psychol. Bull. 52(1), 69–76 (1955)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson, K., Deane, K., Lindley, D., Loucks, B., Veach, E.: The effects of time of day and practice on cognitive abilities: the PEBL Tower of London, Trail-making, and Switcher tasks. PEBL Technical report Series, #2011-01 (2012). https://sites.google.com/site/pebltechnicalreports/
  5. 5.
    Anno, G.H., Dore, M.A., Roth. T.J.: Taxonomic model for performance degradation in combat tasks. Pacific-Sierra Corporation Technical report, Contract #DNA-001-90-C-0139 (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barrett, L.F., Russell, J.A.: The structure of current affect: controversies and emerging consensus. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 8(1), 10–14 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Borg, G.A.: Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 14(5), 377–381 (1982)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown, R.G., Marsden, C.D.: Dual task performance and processing resources in normal subjects and patients with Parkinson’s disease. Brain 114(1), 215–231 (1991)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cardello, A.V., Winterhalter, C., Schutz, H.G.: Predicting the handle and comfort of military clothing fabrics from sensory and instrumental data: development and application of new psychophysical methods. Text. Res. J. 73(3), 221–237 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chang, T.Y., Kajackaite, A.: Battle for the thermostat: gender and the effect of temperature on cognitive performance. PLoS ONE 14(5), e0216362 (2019)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Colligan, L., Potts, H.W., Finn, C.T., Sinkin, R.A.: Cognitive workload changes for nurses transitioning from a legacy system with paper documentation to a commercial electronic health record. Int. J. Med. Inform. 84(7), 469–476 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deuter, C.E., Schilling, T.M., Kuehl, L.K., Blumenthal, T.D., Schachinger, H.: Startle effects on saccadic responses to emotional target stimuli. Psychophysiology 50(10), 1056–1063 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gagge, A.P., Stolwijk, J.A.J., Hardy, J.D.: Comfort and thermal sensations and associated physiological responses at various ambient temperatures. Environ. Res. 1(1), 1–20 (1967)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hallett, P.E.: Primary and secondary saccades to goals defined by instructions. Vis. Res. 18(10), 1279–1296 (1978)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E.: Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock, P.A., Meshkati, N. (eds.) Advances in Psychology, vol. 52, pp. 139–183. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1988)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hick, W.E.: On the rate of gain of information. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 4(1), 11–26 (1952)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hultzapple, K., et al.: Chemical protection garment redesign for military use by the laboratory for engineered human protecton years 2005–2011. In: Performance of Protective Clothing and Equipment: 9th Volume, Emerging Issues and Technologies. ASTM International (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jersild, A.T.: Mental set and shift. Arch. Psychol. 14(89), 81 (1927)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levy, D.L., Mendell, N.R., Holzman, P.S.: The antisaccade task and neuropsychological tests of prefrontal cortical integrity in schizophrenia: empirical findings and interpretative considerations. World Psychiatry 3(1), 32–40 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liesefeld, H.R., Janczyk, M.: Combining speed and accuracy to control for speed-accuracy trade-offs (?). Behav. Res. Methods 51(1), 40–60 (2019)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miyake, A., Friedman, N.P., Emerson, M.J., Witzki, A.H., Howerter, A., Wager, T.D.: The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cogn. Psychol. 41(1), 49–100 (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mueller, S.T.: PEBL: the psychology experiment building language (Version 2.1) [Computer experiment programming language] (2018). http://pebl.sourceforge.net
  23. 23.
    Mueller, S.T.: Adapting the Task-Taxon-Task methodology to model the impacts of chemical protective gear. In: The 19th Annual Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Charleston, SC (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mueller, S.T., Piper, B.J.: The psychology experiment building language (PEBL) and PEBL test battery. J. Neurosci. Methods 222, 250–259 (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mueller, S.T., Simpkins, B., Anno, G., Fallon, C.K., Price, O., McClellan, G.E.: Adapting the task-taxon-task methodology to model the impact of chemical protective gear. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 17(3), 251–271 (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pierce, J., Hirsch, S., Kane, S., Venafro, J., Winterhalter, C.: Evaluation of thermal comfort of fabrics using a controlled-environment chamber. In: Performance of Protective Clothing and Equipment: 9th Volume, Emerging Issues and Technologies. ASTM International (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Proctor, R.W., Schneider, D.W.: Hick’s law for choice reaction time: a review. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 71(6), 1281–1299 (2017)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schumacher, E.H., et al.: Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychol. Sci. 12(2), 101–108 (2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wickens, C.D.: Processing resources and attention. In: Damos, D.L. (ed) Multiple-Task Performance. Taylor & Francis, London (1991)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zijlstra, F.R.H.: Efficiency in work behaviour: a design approach for modern tools. Doctoral Thesis (1993). https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=6863266

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Michigan Technological UniversityHoughtonUSA

Personalised recommendations