4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Use of neurobehavioral tests to evaluate the effects of indoor environment quality on productivity

Journal

BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT
Volume 44, Issue 11, Pages 2208-2217

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.02.001

Keywords

Indoor environment quality; Office work; Productivity; Neurobehavioral tests; The Profile of Mood States

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effects of indoor environment quality on productivity were reviewed. It could be concluded that there was a need to systematically and quantitatively measure the effect of indoor environment quality on office worker's productivity. An experiment was carried out in field laboratory to investigate the effect of indoor air temperature (17 degrees C, 21 degrees C, and 28 degrees C) on productivity with 21 participants (6 females and 15 males). Participants' performance was evaluated with 13 computerized neurobehavioral tests, which assessed different neurobehavioral functions including visual perception, working memory, reasoning, executive functions etc. Participants' emotion was assessed with the Profile of Mood States (POMS), which consisted of six identifiable mood states: tension, depression, anger, vigor, fatigue, and confusion. Effort exerted on each neurobehavioral test was tapped with subjective questionnaires. The results revealed that more information could be provided when the subjective questionnaires were utilized together with the neurobehavioral performance measures. The POMS showed high reliability to investigate the relationship between thermal environment and occupant productivity. The performance of neurobehavioral tests decreased when the thermal environment deviated from neutral condition. Participants experienced more negative emotions and had to exert more effort to maintain their performance under moderately adverse (slightly warm or slightly cool) environmental conditions. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available