4.5 Article

Thermal pleasure in built environments: alliesthesia in different thermoregulatory zones

期刊

BUILDING RESEARCH AND INFORMATION
卷 44, 期 1, 页码 20-33

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09613218.2015.1059653

关键词

adaptation; air-conditioning; alliesthesia; non-steady-state environments; physiology; thermal comfort; thermal pleasure; thermoreceptors

资金

  1. Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) at University of Sydney [14285]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The principle of thermal alliesthesia indicates that the hedonic character of a thermal environment is determined as much by the general state of the subject as by the environment itself. An environmental stimulus that offsets or counters a thermoregulatory load error will be pleasantly perceived, and vice versa. Extant empirical evidence supporting thermal alliesthesia only exists for instances of core temperature deviation. Yet the reconciliation of alliesthesia with contemporary neurophysiological discourse (in the previous paper in this series) renders the concept directly relevant to everyday experiences in built environments where core temperature rarely deviates from neutral values. New experimental data are presented that explore alliesthesia in non-steady-state conditions across three different physiological states: thermoneutral; the upper and lower fringes of the thermoneutral zone; and mild excursions into the sweating and shivering regulatory zones. Thirteen human subjects evaluated the hedonic tone of a sequence of temperature step-changes and ramps. It was found that the psychophysiological principle of thermal alliesthesia operates within the thermoneutral zone, making it equally relevant to quotidian indoor environments as it is to the extremes found in traditional physiological research. Non-steady-state built environments can potentially offer spatial alliesthesia through carefully managed contrasts between local and mean skin temperature trends. Transitional zones are suggested as design solutions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据