Physiology & Behavior 247 (2022) 113724

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Physiology & Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/physbeh

Psychological adaptation to thermal environments and its effects on

thermal sensation
Lianfei Zhuang a, *, Jingxin Huang b, Fengjuan Li b, Ke Zhong a
a
College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Donghua University, Shanghai, China
b
College of Energy and Mechanical Engineering, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Psychological adaptation to thermal environments might play an important role in the human thermal comfort.
Psychological adaptation However, effects of psychological thermal adaptation on thermal comfort have been rarely studied. To investi­
Skin temperature gate building occupants’ psychological adaptation to indoor climates in hot summer and cold winter, a long-term
Thermal neutrality
tracking survey within a year in a naturally ventilated building was conducted on a group of occupants from a
Summer
Winter
college class in Nanjing situated in the Hot Summer and Cold Winter zone. Indoor and outdoor environment
PMV parameters were measured, and at the same time occupants’ clothing insulation, physical activity level, and
thermal sensation were investigated using questionnaires. Results indicate building occupants adapted to their
hot environments in summer and cold environments in winter by psychological adaptation. Occupants’ neutral
skin temperature was elevated in summer while lowered in winter due to psychological adaptive processes. The
thermal sensitivity to skin/operative temperature change is influenced by psychological adaptation, and the
higher the psychological adaptation, the lower the sensitivity to skin/operative temperature change. Further­
more, psychological adaptation is affected by both the indoor climate and outdoor climate to which occupants
are exposed.

in maintaining thermal comfort. The fundamental premise of the

1. Introduction
With household incomes rising and population growth, an increasing
number of building occupants are using HVAC systems to maintain
comfortable indoor climates. Many people become accustomed to the
indoor tightly-controlled climates created by HVAC systems. Unfortu­
nately, maintaining the constant indoor environmental conditions not
only causes a large amount of energy consumption but also contributes
to global warming [1]. Driven by concerns over increasing pollution and
climate change, many researchers rethink what indoor climate actually
makes building occupants comfortable and how to design the sustain­
able building without reducing its occupants’ thermal comfort [2, 3].
Since cooling or heating the indoor thermal environment is all for oc­
cupants’ thermal comfort, it is not surprising that much research has
focused on reducing the comfort-related energy consumption through a
better understanding of human adaptation to the thermal environment
[4–7].
Unlike the heat balance approach to thermal comfort [8] which
predicts thermal perception based on physical parameters, the adaptive
approach [9,10] attaches importance to the role which the person plays
adaptive approach is: “if a change occurs such as to produce discomfort,
people react in ways which tend to restore their comfort” [2]. In other
words, the adaptive approach suggests the thermal comfort is not only
dependent on the physical environment but also on the person’s thermal
adaptation. The adaptive comfort models have been included in ASH­
RAE standard 55 [11], EN 15,251 [12], GB/T 50,785 [13], etc., and
widely applied by the thermal comfort research community. The adap­
tive approach argues that building occupants adapt to thermal envi­
ronments mainly by psychological adaptation and behavioral
adjustment and the slow process of physiological adaptation has little
relevance to thermal adaptation [10]. The adaptive approach is ex­
pected to become the prevailing trend in the thermal comfort field.
Despite progress which has been made, the adaptive approach to
thermal comfort has some unproved hypotheses. One typical uncer­
tainty is the role of psychological adaptation in influencing thermal
perception. Although psychological adaptation might actually play an
important role in thermal comfort perception, it has been the least
studied of the three adaptive processes [10, 14]. The PMV model is a
classic thermal comfort model, which has been accepted as national
standards [11–13]. However, many studies [15–17] presented the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: 896422346@qq.com (L. Zhuang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2022.113724
Received 20 September 2021; Received in revised form 12 January 2022; Accepted 21 January 2022
Available online 23 January 2022
0031-9384/© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
L. Zhuang et al.
Nomenclature
AMV Actual mean vote
Cres Convective heat loss from respiration (W/m2)
Edif Diffusion heat loss from skin (W/m2)
Eres Evaporative heat loss from respiration (W/m2)
Ersw Evaporative heat loss by regulatory sweating (W/m2)
fcl Clothing area factor
hc Convective heat transfer coefficient (W/(m2⋅ ◦ C))
HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
Icl Clothing insulation (clo)
L Psychological adaptation level
M Metabolic rate (met)
pa Water vapor pressure (kPa)
PA Psychological adaptation
PMV Predicted mean vote
RH Relative humidity (%)
RMSE Root mean square error
difference between predicted mean vote (PMV) and actual mean vote
(AMV), particularly in non-air-conditioned buildings situated in hot and
cold climate zones. Brager and de Dear [10] argue this difference is
likely to come from influences of psychological adaptation which arises
from a combination of higher levels of perceived control and more
diverse thermal experiences in naturally ventilated buildings. In
contrast, Nicol and Humphreys [2] suggest the difference is probably
due to an accumulation of the small effects caused by a wide variety of
behavioral adjustments which together result in a large difference in
comfort. Yao et al. [18] state the difference results from both psycho­
logical adaptation and behavioral adjustment, but they use a ‘black box’
approach to incorporate these two adaptive processes into one factor,
which cannot distinguish between the effects of individual adaptive
processes. Schweiker and Wagner [19] suggest the difference arises from
psychological adaptation, physiological adaptation, and behavioral
adaptation, and they use metabolic rate to quantify perceived control
(which is described as a part of psychological adaptation [19]) and
physiological adaptation and use clothing insulation to quantify
behavioral adaptation.
To date, no agreement has been reached on what leads to the dif­
ference between PMV and AMV. Nevertheless, many researchers [10,
20] consider that the most likely explanation for this difference is the
psychological thermal adaptation, although there is no consensus on the
definition of psychological thermal adaptation [10, 20–25]. To find out
whether psychological adaptation gives rise to the difference between
PMV and AMV, it is essential to quantify the psychological thermal
adaptation. Furthermore, to figure out the reason for the difference
between PMV and AMV can help us to better understand how people
adapt to their thermal environments, and we can exploit these adaptive
processes to design the energy-saving building without reducing the
indoor thermal comfort.
Meanwhile, another typical uncertainty of the adaptive approach
concerns the driving force behind the thermal adaptation. Up to now,
there is no agreement on whether the indoor or outdoor climate shapes a
person’s thermal adaptation. By analyzing the difference between PMV
and AMV in naturally ventilated buildings, Brager and de Dear [10]
interpret thermal adaptation as the behavioral adjustment and thermal
expectation in such buildings. Since then, many adaptive models have
been presented, taking the outdoor climate as the driving force behind
the adaptive process [26–28]. On the other hand, many studies found
the indoor thermal experience also plays an important role in shaping
the person’s thermal adaptation. For example, Zhang et al. [29] con­
ducted a comparative experimental study in a climate chamber in a hot
and humid area of China. The subjects were divided into two groups, one
2
Physiology & Behavior 247 (2022) 113724
rPMV Revised predicted mean vote
ta Air temperature ( ◦ C)
tcl Clothing surface temperature ( ◦ C)
tg Globe temperature ( ◦ C)
tin,m Mean indoor air temperature ( ◦ C)
TL Thermal load (W/m2)
tm Mean experienced air temperature ( ◦ C)
top Operative temperature ( ◦ C)
tout Outdoor air temperature ( ◦ C)
tout,m Mean outdoor air temperature ( ◦ C)
tr Mean radiant temperature ( ◦ C)
tskin Mean skin temperature ( ◦ C)
tskin,n Neutral skin temperature ( ◦ C)
TSV Thermal sensation vote
v Air velocity (m/s)
Vobserved Observed sensation vote
Vpredicted Predicted sensation vote
W Mechanical work (W/m2)
living in air-conditioned buildings and the other living in naturally
ventilated buildings. The results showed the group living in naturally
ventilated environments with a warmer indoor thermal history had a
higher neutral temperature, a lower thermal sensitivity, and a lower
thermal sensation than the other group in air-conditioned environments.
Similar results were observed in studies conducted in university build­
ings [30, 31], in residential buildings [32, 33], and in climate chambers
[34, 35]. Jointly, these studies confirm the influence of exposure to the
indoor climate on adaptation to the thermal environment [29–35].
The above reviewed studies mainly concentrated on finding the
thermal adaptation difference between two groups of subjects who had
different indoor thermal experiences. Few studies have been designed to
explore the process of occupants’ adaptation to the seasonal climate
change through a long-term tracking survey, which can better reflect
how occupants adapt to the different thermal environments. In order to
determine the effects of psychological adaptation on the thermal
sensation and the influencing factors of psychological adaptation, we
conducted a long-term tracking survey in a naturally ventilated build­
ing, attempting to answer the following questions: 1) Whether the oc­
cupants adapt to their hot environments of summer and cold
environments of winter by psychological adaptation and how to quan­
tify the psychological adaptation. 2) Whether the indoor climate or the
outdoor climate shapes the occupants’ psychological adaptation. This
work supposes it will be observed that building occupants adapt to the
thermal environments by psychological adaptation and both the indoor
and outdoor climate shape their psychological adaptation.
2. Methodology
2.1. Experimental design
Nanjing is situated in the Hot Summer and Cold Winter (HSCW) zone
of China where buildings are not provided with district space heating
[36]. The monthly mean temperature is 27.8 ◦ C in July and 2.4 ◦ C in
January. Consequently, the indoor temperature in summer is much
greater than that in winter in naturally ventilated buildings. This large
indoor temperature difference between summer and winter provides a
natural opportunity for research on occupants’ adaptation to different
indoor thermal conditions. To study occupants’ adaptation to the sea­
sonal climate change, we conducted a long-term tracking survey on a
group of occupants in Nanjing within a year to observe how they
adapted to the hot environments in summer and cold environments in
winter.
A total of 22 subjects were recruited from a college class, who were
L. Zhuang et al. Physiology & Behavior 247 (2022) 113724

Table 1 parameters were recorded at 5-min intervals. However, for the analysis
Subject information. of thermal comfort, the environment parameters which were collected at
Location Season Indoor Sample size Age Valid the same time as the questionnaire survey were considered.
thermal male Female (years) response
experience 2.3. Questionnaire survey
Nanjing Summer Living in the 12 10 21.4 220
non-cooled In addition to measuring environment parameters in the surveyed
building classroom, a simultaneous questionnaire survey was conducted on
Winter Living in the 220
non-heated
subjects who had stayed in the classroom for about 40 min and were
building having a break between classes or doing individual studies. In each
specific survey, 22 subjects completed a questionnaire two times and the
interval between two questionnaires was at least 30 min. The ques­
tionnaire survey consisted of the following three parts.

2.3.1. Subject background

In the preparation stage of the questionnaire survey, the basic in­
formation of subjects, such as age, gender, hometown, the use of air-
conditioner in summer/heater in winter, etc. were collected.

2.3.2. Clothing insulation and activity level

Fig. 1. The typical exterior of the surveyed building.
all in good health status. There were 23 students in this class but one
student was excluded because of health problem. They studied in non-
cooled buildings in summer and non-heated buildings in winter. All
subjects had lived in Nanjing for more than 2 years and could be
considered to have adapted to the local climate. The detailed informa­
tion on subjects and final valid responses are listed in Table 1. The
requirement of sample size is met in the present study [37].
2.2. Environment parameters measurement
Fig. 1 shows the typical exterior of the surveyed building. The case
study building is a teaching building which is naturally ventilated. The
field measurements of the indoor physical environment parameters were
performed two or three times a month in the surveyed building. Field
measurements in summer were carried out during five lectures from
early June to early July, and in winter measurements were during five
lectures from early December to early January.
Table 2 lists the specification of the instrument, which was used to
measure the indoor air dry-bulb temperature, black globe temperature,
relative humidity, and air velocity. To capture the indoor representative
environment parameters, the measuring sensors were positioned at the
center of the surveyed classroom which were less than 2 m from the
respondents, and were placed at the height of 0.6 m above the floor
representing the main activity area of sitting body. The measurement of
indoor environment parameters was from the beginning of the lecture to
the end of the lecture (a total of 85 min), and the environment
This part of the survey aimed to collect subjects’ clothing insulations
and activity levels. The clothes which subjects were wearing were asked
by the questionnaire and their corresponding clothing insulations were
evaluated according to ASHARE Standard 55 [11]. Meanwhile, subjects’
activity states were questioned using the questionnaire and their cor­
responding metabolic rates were determined according to suggested
values in ISO 8996 [38]. For example, a common seating posture with
reading/writing is regarded as a metabolic rate of 1.0 met (1 met = 58.2
W/m2).
2.3.3. Thermal sensation evaluation
To obtain subjects’ evaluation of indoor climatic conditions, thermal
sensation was surveyed by the questionnaire. Thermal sensation vote
(TSV) adopted a 7-point scale (− 3 = cold, − 2 = cool, − 1 = slightly cool,
0 = neutral, +1 = slightly warm, +2 = warm, +3 = hot).
2.4. Methods for calculating skin temperature
There are two different methods for calculating skin temperature tskin
which can be discerned in the literature. One is to use weighted local
skin temperatures to calculate tskin [39, 40]. This method can lead to
different values of tskin when using different measured skin sites or
weighting factors [41,42]. The other is to use the human heat balance
equation to calculate tskin [43–45]. When using the heat balance equa­
tion method, the errors in measuring physical parameters (such as
operative temperature, clothing insulation, and metabolic rate) have
impacts on tskin calculation. In the present study, tskin was calculated
using the latter method.
When people are in the steady thermal environment, the human heat
balance equation [46] is as follows.
( ) ( )
M − W − fcl (hc + hr ) tcl − top − Ersw + Edif − (Eres + Cres ) = 0 (1a)
where M is the metabolic rate, W is the mechanical work, fcl is the
clothing area factor, hc is the convective heat transfer coefficient, hr is
the radiative heat transfer coefficient, tcl is the clothing surface tem­
perature, top is the operative temperature, Ersw is the evaporative heat
loss by regulatory sweating, Edif is the diffusion evaporative heat loss

Table 2
The specification of the instrument.
Instrument Manufacturer Parameter Sensor Range Precision

R-Log 7730 LSI-Lastem ta Psychrometer 0–45 ◦ C ±0.5 ◦ C

tg Black globe thermometer 5–45 ◦ C ±0.5 ◦ C
RH Psychrometer 10–90% ±2%
v Hotwire anemometer 0–1.5 m/s ±0.1 m/s

3
L. Zhuang et al. Physiology & Behavior 247 (2022) 113724

Core Sensed by Thermosensitive Signal Control Autonomic

temperature neurons thermoregulation
and
behavioral
Sensed by Thermo- thermoregulation
Skin
temperature regulation
center
Cutaneous
thermoreceptors Signal
Possessed by before adaptation Generate Thermal sensation
Adaptation level
before adaptation before adaptation

Psychological adaptive process Lessening Lessening

Adaptation level Thermal sensation

after adaptation Possessed by Signal after adaptation Generate after adaptation

Fig. 2. Effects of psychological adaptive process on thermal sensation. Note: The signal sent from thermosensitive neurons is only determined by the core tem­
perature because thermosensitive neurons have no thermal adaptability. The frequency of pulse signal sent from cutaneous thermoreceptors lessens after adaptation.
The psychological adaptive process is described as repeated or chronic exposure to an external stimulus (i.e., a certain skin temperature) leading to a decline in the
thermal response to this skin temperature.

from skin, Eres is the evaporative loss from respiration, and Cres is the 3.1. Relation between thermal sensation and physical stimulation
convective heat loss from respiration.
The clothing area factor fcl can be calculated by the following The reason that the human body can sense the change of the ambient
equation [47, 48]. temperature is because there exist cutaneous thermoreceptors in the
skin. It is to be noted that cutaneous thermoreceptors can only sense the
fcl = 1.0 + 0.25Icl (1b)
skin temperature, not the environment temperature. When cutaneous
The convective heat transfer coefficient hc and the radiative heat thermoreceptors are stimulated by the skin temperature, they send pulse
transfer coefficient hr can be calculated by following equations [46,49]. signals of about 50 mV to the brain and the intensity of pulse signals is
( ) determined by the pulse frequency. On the other hand, cutaneous
hc = max 2.38(tcl − ta )0.25 , 8.3v0.6 (1c) thermoreceptors have the significant thermal adaptability to the
ambient environment. Kenshalo [50] conducted an experimental study
[ ]
3.96 × 10− 8
(tcl + 273)4 − (tr + 273)4 on the forearm skin and found that the forearm skin temperature for the
hr = (1d) neutral thermal sensation varied between 31 ◦ C and 36 ◦ C depending on
tcl − tr
the stimulus intensity and duration during the experiment. This in­
where ta is the air temperature, v is the air velocity, and tr is the mean dicates that pulse signals sent from cutaneous thermoreceptors to the
radiant temperature. brain are not only dependent on the skin temperature but also affected
The clothing surface temperature tcl can be calculated by the by the thermal experience of cutaneous thermoreceptors. Therefore,
following equation [46]. there is a dynamic relation between thermal sensation and skin
[ ( )] temperature.
tcl = tskin − Icl fcl (hc + hr ) tcl − top (1e)
Meanwhile, thermosensitive neurons in the central nervous system
The diffusion evaporative heat loss from skin Edif, the evaporative such as the hypothalamus sense the core temperature. If the core tem­
heat loss through respiration Eres, and the convective heat loss through perature deviates from the set-point temperature determined by the
respiration Cres can be calculated by following equations [46]. activity level, the thermoregulation system will control various physi­
ological processes to regulate the core temperature [46]. For the human
Edif = 3.05(0.254tskin − 3.335 − pa ) (1f) health, pulse signals sent from thermosensitive neurons to the thermo­
regulation center should only be determined by the core temperature
Eres = 0.0173M(5.867 − pa ) (1g)
and not be affected by other factors such as thermal adaptability, as well
as their corresponding thermal perception. Therefore, thermosensitive
Cres = 0.0014M(34 − ta ) (1h)
neurons have no thermal adaptability to the ambient environment.
where pa is the water vapor pressure in ambient air.
When ta, tr, v, pa, Icl, and M are measured, tskin can be solved by 3.2. Definition of psychological thermal adaptation
combining above equations provided that there is no regulatory sweat
generation. Some studies describe psychological thermal adaptation as the
expectation [10, 20], which means building occupants can change their
3. Psychological thermal adaptation own thermal perceptions according to their expectations of the thermal
environment. By contrast, a few researchers [2, 15] argue that occupants
To quantify psychological adaptation to thermal environments, the are unlikely to modify their thermal responses based on their expecta­
relation between thermal sensation and physical stimulation and the tions of the built environment, which is also supported by evidence from
definition of psychological adaptation were introduced in this section. the field [15]. In fact, the process in which the brain receives and han­
dles thermal signals, and generates the corresponding thermal

4
L. Zhuang et al.
perception is controlled by the thermoregulation system. Like the visual
sensation, auditory sensation, olfactory sensation, etc., it may seem
unlikely that the thermal sensation should be changed on the basis of the
expectation of the built environment.
In psychophysics, psychological adaptation is described as a decline
in the perceptual response to an external stimulus which is familiar due
to repeated or chronic exposure [23–25]. The external thermal stimulus
is the skin temperature, because cutaneous thermoreceptors can only
sense the skin temperature, but not the environment temperature. In
other words, psychological thermal adaptation is a decline in the ther­
mal response to a certain skin temperature which is familiar due to
repeated or chronic exposure. Hence, a certain skin temperature can
result in the different thermal sensations due to psychological adapta­
tion. In addition, the psychological adaptive process is affected by both
the external stimulus intensity and duration (i.e., the thermal experi­
ence) during the adaptation period [23–25].
3.3. Mathematical model of psychological thermal adaptation
Thermal sensation of the human body depends on both the core
temperature and the skin temperature [8, 51, 52]. The core temperature,
which is determined by the physical activity level [46], is called as the
internal thermal stimulus to the human body. The skin temperature is
referred to as the external thermal stimulus to the human body, as
cutaneous thermoreceptors are only stimulated by the skin temperature,
not the environment temperature. When the internal stimulus (i.e., core
temperature or activity level) is a constant value, the external stimulus
(i.e., skin temperature) will determine the thermal sensation. On the
other hand, the thermal sensation determined by the skin temperature
will weaken due to the psychological adaptive process [23–25]. Mean­
while, the psychological adaptation level will increase with the psy­
chological adaptive process. Therefore, the same skin temperature can
lead to the different thermal sensations depending on the psychological
adaptation level (Note that the psychological adaptation level is
dependent on the past thermal experience). Fig. 2 shows how the psy­
chological adaptive process affects the thermal sensation.
It can be seen in Fig. 2 that the thermal sensation is dependent on
both the signal sent from thermosensitive neurons and the signal from
cutaneous thermoreceptors. The signal sent from thermosensitive neu­
rons is only determined by the core temperature, and is not affected by
the thermal adaptability. On the other side, the signal sent from cuta­
neous thermoreceptors is not only determined by the skin temperature
but also affected by the psychological adaptation level, because cuta­
neous thermoreceptors have the significant adaptability to the ambient
environment. The intensity (i.e., frequency) of the pulse signal sent from
cutaneous thermoreceptors lessens after the psychological adaptive
process. Therefore, when the core temperature is given, the thermal
sensation is not only dependent on the skin temperature, but also
influenced by the psychological adaptation level. Noted that the core
temperature is determined by the activity level. In a word, the thermal
sensation is a function of the activity level, the skin temperature, and the
psychological adaptation level, as shown in Eq. (2).
TSV = f (M, tskin , L) (2)
where TSV is the thermal sensation vote, M is the metabolic rate (i.e., the
activity level), tskin is the skin temperature, and L is the psychological
adaptation level.
As shown in Eq. (2), the skin temperature for a given thermal
sensation is influenced not only by the activity level but also by the
psychological adaptation level. For example, the neutral skin tempera­
ture (i.e., skin temperature for neutrality) is affected not only by the
activity level but also by the psychological adaptation level.
Eq. (2) can be rewritten as:
L = f1 (M, tskin , TSV) (3)
5
Physiology & Behavior 247 (2022) 113724
As shown in Eq. (3), the psychological adaptation level can be
quantified with the skin temperature, the thermal sensation vote, or the
activity level:
1) Using the skin temperature.
When the activity level and thermal sensation vote are given, the
level of psychological adaptation is only relevant to the skin temperature
and considered equivalent to the value of skin temperature. Specifically,
a higher skin temperature signifies the higher level of psychological
adaptation in a warm or hot environment, while signifies the lower level
of psychological adaptation in a cold environment. For example, when
the activity level is l.0 met (equivalent to ‘seating posture with reading/
writing’) and the thermal sensation is neutrality, a higher neutral skin
temperature (which means the higher indoor neutral air temperature)
signifies the higher level of psychological adaptation in hot summer,
while signifies the lower level of psychological adaptation in cold
winter.
2) Using the thermal sensation vote.
When the activity level and skin temperature are given, the level of
psychological adaptation is equivalent to the value of thermal sensation
vote. To be specific, a higher thermal sensation signifies the lower level
of psychological adaptation in a hot environment, while signifies the
higher level of psychological adaptation in a cold environment.
3) Using the activity level.
When the skin temperature and thermal sensation vote are given, the
level of psychological adaptation is equivalent to the value of activity
level.
By using Eq. (2), the thermal sensitivity to skin temperature change
can be calculated by:
∂TSV ∂f (M, tskin , L)
= (4)
∂tskin ∂tskin
Numerous comparative laboratory studies have reported that there is
a linear relation between thermal sensation vote and skin temperature,
and the thermal sensitivities to skin temperature change are different
between subjects who have different thermal experiences [29, 53–55].
Note that the subjects in these comparative laboratory studies have the
same activity level (i.e., seating posture with reading/writing). If the
sensitivities to skin temperature change were not relevant to the psy­
chological adaptation level, these sensitivities between different sub­
jects would be equal or approximately equal, as shown in Eq. (4).
However, the fact is that in summer the subjects with the higher thermal
experiences have the higher neutral skin temperature (i.e., the higher
psychological adaptation level) and the lower sensitivity to skin tem­
perature change compared to their counterparts with the lower thermal
experiences [29], and in winter the subjects with the lower thermal
experiences have the lower neutral skin temperature (i.e., the higher
psychological adaptation level) and the lower sensitivity to skin tem­
perature change compared their counterparts with the higher thermal
experiences [53]. By reduction to absurdity, it is proved that the psy­
chological adaptation level has the impacts on the sensitivity to skin
temperature change as shown in Eq. (4), and the higher the level of
psychological adaptation, the lower the sensitivity to skin temperature
change.
By using Eq. (2), the thermal sensitivity to operative temperature
change is determined by:
∂TSV ∂TSV ∂tskin ∂f (M, tskin , L) ∂tskin
= = (5)
∂top ∂tskin ∂top ∂tskin ∂top
As shown in Eq. (5), the sensitivity to operative temperature varia­
tion is influenced by the psychological adaptation level. The higher the
level of psychological adaptation, the lower the sensitivity to operative
temperature change.
Psychological adaptation (i.e., the psychological adaptive process)
can be calculated by:
PA = L2 − L1 (6)
L. Zhuang et al. Physiology & Behavior 247 (2022) 113724

Table 3
The measured indoor and outdoor environment parameters.
Environment parameters Summer Winter
Mean Max. Min. Mean Max. Min.

tout ( ◦ C) 28.1 31.9 24.3 6.3 10.2 3.8

ta ( ◦ C) 28.5 30.8 25.6 17.8 21.1 15.9
tg ( ◦ C) 28.6 30.8 25.8 17.4 20.7 15.5
RH (%) 69.8 75.3 64.5 56.2 61.8 43.3
v (m/s) 0.04 0.12 0.02 0.03 0.06 0
top ( ◦ C) 28.5 30.8 25.7 17.5 20.8 15.6

Fig. 4. Relations between actual mean vote (AMV), predicted mean vote
(PMV), and indoor operative temperature. Note: each point represents the
average PMV or AMV in a specific survey.

As shown in Fig. 3, respondents had negatively correlated relations

Fig. 3. Relation between clothing insulation and indoor operative temperature.
Note: each point represents the average clothing insulation in a specific survey.
where PA is the psychological adaptation, L2 is the psychological
adaptation level after adaptation, and L1 is the psychological adaptation
level before adaptation.
Using Eqs. (3) and (6), psychological adaptation can be quantified by
the difference between the skin temperature, the thermal sensation vote,
or the activity level after and before adaptation. For example, when the
activity level is 1.0 met and the thermal sensation is neutrality, the value
of psychological adaptation is equivalent to the difference between the
neutral skin temperature after and before adaptation.
Eq. (6) can be rewritten as:
L2 = L1 + PA
As shown in Eq. (7), the psychological adaptation level after adap­
tation is dependent on the psychological adaptation, as well as the
psychological adaptation level before adaptation. The greater the psy­
chological adaptation, the higher the level of psychological adaptation
after adaptation.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Measured physical parameters
Table 3 shows the measured indoor/outdoor environment parame­
ters. The mean radiant temperature was calculated using the air tem­
perature, black globe temperature, and air velocity according to ISO
7726 [56]. Because the difference between air temperature and mean
radiant temperature was less than 0.5 ◦ C, the operative temperature was
the simple mean of the air temperature and mean radiant temperature
[56].
As shown in Table 3, the indoor/outdoor temperature in summer was
much higher than that in winter, which offered a natural opportunity for
research on how building occupants adapted to these different thermal
environments.
Fig. 3 shows the relation between clothing insulation and operative
temperature in summer and winter. Each point in Fig. 3 represents the
average clothing insulation in a specific survey.
between clothing insulation and indoor operative temperature in sum­
mer and winter. When the indoor temperature increased, respondents
tended to wear less clothing. For example, when the indoor temperature
in winter increased from 15.6 ◦ C to 20.8 ◦ C, the average clothing insu­
lation decreased from 1.23 clo to 1.02 clo. The regression equation of
clothing insulation is presented as follows:
Icl,summer = − 0.0221 × top + 1.0258, R2 = 0.9103 (8)
Icl,winter = − 0.044 × top + 1.9132, R2 = 0.9259 (9)
4.2. Thermal comfort perceptions
Fig. 4 shows relations between PMV, AMV and operative tempera­
ture in summer and winter. Each point in Fig. 4 represents the average
PMV or AMV in a specific survey. Since respondents were seated and
reading/writing when investigated, their activity levels were regarded
as 1.0 met.
Seen from Fig. 4, the AMV regression line is below the PMV regres­
sion line in summer, indicating PMV overestimated respondents’ warm
sensation in warm environments. In contrast, the AMV regression line is
(7)
above the PMV regression line in winter, suggesting PMV overestimated
respondents’ cool sensation in cool environments. The PMV and AMV
regression equations in summer and winter are presented as follows:
PMVsummer = 0.412 × top − 10.739, R2 = 0.9942 (10)
AMVsummer = 0.3162 × top − 8.5812, R2 = 0.9378 (11)
PMVwinter = 0.1754 × top − 4.3865, R2 = 0.9728 (12)
AMVwinter = 0.1548 × top − 3.5163, R2 = 0.9021 (13)
Using Eqs. (11) and (13), the observed neutral operative temperature
can be determined, which was 27.1 ◦ C in summer and 22.7 ◦ C in winter.
As shown in Eqs. (10)–(13), the slope of AMV regression equation is
smaller than that of PMV regression equation in summer and winter. The
lower the sensitivity to temperature change (i.e., the smaller the slope),
the higher the level of psychological adaptation, as shown in Eq. (5).
Therefore, respondents had the higher level of psychological adaptation
than the PMV uses both in summer and in winter.
4.3. Neutral skin temperature
The neutral skin temperature has significant effects on the indoor
neutral temperature [8] and thus has great importance to building
design [57]. Moreover, the level of psychological adaptation can be

6
L. Zhuang et al. Physiology & Behavior 247 (2022) 113724

Table 4
Impacts of measuring error on the neutral skin temperature.
Measurement Possible error Possible error in tskin,n

top ( C)
◦
±2% 1.4%
pa (kPa) ±10% 0.4%
Icl (clo) ±20% 1.3%
M (W/m2) ±5% 1.1%

quantified by the neutral skin temperature, as shown in Eq. (3). Next, we

will calculate the neutral skin temperature tskin,n in summer and winter
using Eq. (1).
There are two approximations used to simplify Eq. (1). First, because
pa changed little in summer/winter and had little impacts on tskin
calculation, pa is simplified as the indoor mean pa during survey periods.
Second, noting the difference between ta and tr is relatively small (less
Fig. 5. Relations between AMV, PMV, rPMV, and indoor operative tempera­
than 0.5 ◦ C), ta and tr are considered equivalent to top (i.e., ta = tr = top).
ture. Note: rPMV was predicted by the rPMV model which replaced the neutral
As shown in Table 3, the indoor v is too small to affect hc. Additionally,
skin temperature used by the PMV model with that observed in experiments.
Ersw is zero for the sedentary activity (reading/writing) in slightly warm
to cold conditions [8,15,58]. When top, pa, Icl, and M under neutral
indoor hot environments. This means that it is likely that naturally
conditions are measured, tskin,n can be determined by Eq. (1). At the
ventilated buildings can meet the requirement of indoor thermal com­
same time, given measuring errors of these four physical parameters, we
fort in summer. By contrast, in cold winter, building occupants have the
analyzed impacts of such errors on tskin,n calculation. For example, we
lower neutral skin temperature and thus the lower indoor neutral air
input the following indoor neutral conditions, observed in the surveyed
temperature due to psychological adaptation to indoor cold environ­
building in summer:
ments. This suggests that it is possible that buildings without space
heating can meet the requirement of indoor thermal comfort in winter.
• operative temperature, top = 27.1 ◦ C;
The neutral skin temperature is the benchmark for environmental
• water vapor pressure, pa = 2.72 kPa;
evaluation [8], and thus it is essential to use the correct neutral skin
• clothing insulation, Icl = 0.43 clo;
temperature to predict thermal perception.
• metabolic rate, M = 1.0 met.

Table 4 lists the errors in neutral skin temperature caused by the

4.4. Improving accuracy in predicting thermal perception
possible measuring errors of above four physical parameters. The mea­
surement of operative temperature and water vapor pressure can be
Building occupant’s neutral skin temperature varied with the sea­
conducted easily in the field. A 2% error in operative temperature can
sonal climate change. As shown in Eq. (2), the neutral skin temperature
lead to 1.4% error in neutral skin temperature, while a 10% error in
is not only dependent on the activity level but also affected by the
vapor pressure can merely cause 0.4% error. As to activity level and
psychological adaptation level. However, in the PMV model the neutral
clothing insulation, measuring them precisely is difficult. The errors in
skin temperature is only determined by the activity level (Note: the skin
these two personal parameters have less impacts on the neutral skin
temperature used in the PMV model is the neutral skin temperature [8,
temperature calculation than operative temperature. For example, a
46]). To improve predictive accuracy, a revised PMV (rPMV) model is
20% error in clothing insulation will only lead to 1.3% error in neutral
presented by replacing the PMV-used neutral skin temperature with the
skin temperature.
observed neutral skin temperature in experiments which varies ac­
It should also be noted that the objective of the present study is to
cording to psychological adaptation. Consequently, the rPMV model is
investigate the influence of indoor thermal conditions on subjects’
to use a neutral skin temperature of 35.3 ◦ C in summer and 32.5 ◦ C in
neutral skin temperature (i.e., psychological adaptation). Thus, we
winter to replace the constant value 34.1 ◦ C in the PMV.
mainly pay attention to the change trend of neutral skin temperature
The validity of the PMV/rPMV model for predicting thermal sensa­
with indoor thermal environments, rather than to the absolute precision
tion is measured by the root mean square error (RMSE) which represents
of the neutral skin temperature. Although there exist measuring errors in
the average difference between predicted and observed thermal sensa­
the determination of neutral skin temperature, the general variation is
tion vote.
reliable.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
In summer, the neutral skin temperature is 35.3 ◦ C by substituting ∑( )2
Vpredicted − Vobserved
the indoor neutral top (27.1 ◦ C), indoor mean Pa (2.72 kPa), Icl (0.43 clo) RMSE = (14)
at the neutral top, and activity level M (1.0 met) into Eq. (1), which is n
1.2 ◦ C more than the constant value 34.1 ◦ C used by the PMV model. In
where RMSE is the root mean square error, Vpredicted is the predicted
winter, the neutral skin temperature is 32.5 ◦ C by substituting the indoor
sensation vote, and Vobserved is the observed sensation vote.
neutral top (22.7 ◦ C), indoor mean Pa (1.06 kPa), Icl (0.91 clo) at the
Fig. 5 shows the comparison between AMV, PMV, and rPMV (pre­
neutral top, and activity level M (1.0 met) into Eq. (1), which is 1.6 ◦ C
dicted by the rPMV model) against indoor operative temperature in
less than 34.1 ◦ C used in the PMV. The change trend of neutral skin
summer and winter. The rPMV regression equation is presented as
temperature is that it is elevated in summer while lowered in winter.
follows:
This confirms respondents adapted to their thermal environments by
psychological adaptation. To summarize, the observed psychological rPMVsummer = 0.4059 × top − 11.086, R2 = 0.9866 (15)
adaptation level was higher than reflected in the PMV both in summer
and winter, as shown in Eq. (3). rPMVwinter = 0.185 × top − 4.0828, R2 = 0.982 (16)
In hot summer, building occupants living in naturally ventilated
As shown in Fig. 5, rPMV is much closer to AMV than PMV both in
buildings have the higher neutral skin temperature and thus the higher
summer and winter. Using Eq. (14), RMSE of PMV in summer and winter
indoor neutral air temperature due to psychological adaptation to
is respectively 0.62 and 0.51, while RMSE of rPMV in summer and

7
L. Zhuang et al. Physiology & Behavior 247 (2022) 113724

Table 5
Thermal comfort experiments: neutral skin temperature in relation to outdoor and indoor climate.
Location and season Reference Mean outdoortemperature ( ◦ C) Mean indoortemperature ( ◦ C) Neutral skintemperature ( ◦ C)

Nanjing-summer Present study 28.1 28.5 35.3

Nanjing-winter Present study 6.3 17.8 32.5
Shanghai-winter [59] 9.9 16.4 31.9
Beijing-winter [59] 3.6 21.3 32.9
Harbin-winter [59] − 8.9 23.9 32.7
Yokohama-summer [60] 30.9 28.3 35.9
Seoul-summer [60] 24.5 26.3 35.7
Beijing-autumn [55] 21.5 21.5 33.7

Note: neutral skin temperatures were calculated using the human heat balance equation.

Fig. 6. Relation between the observed neutral skin temperature and the mean outdoor/indoor air temperature. Note: each point represents the neutral skin tem­
perature in a particular city in a particular season. The data used to calculate the neutral skin temperature is from [55,59,60].

winter is respectively 0.23 and 0.09.

Besides the neutral skin temperature, the sensitivity to operative
temperature change (i.e., the slope) is also affected by the psychological
adaptation level, as shown in Eq. (5). However, the sensitivity of PMV/
rPMV to operative temperature change is not influenced by the psy­
chological adaptation level [8, 46]. It is not surprising then that the
slope of PMV/rPMV regression equation is greater than that of AMV
regression equation in summer and winter, as shown in Eqs. (10)–(13).
Hence, after being calculated using the observed neutral skin tempera­
ture, rPMV should be multiplied by an adaptation factor (i.e., the ratio of
AMV equation slope to rPMV equation slope).

4.5. Comparison of neutral skin temperature in different studies

Table 5 summarizes the results from 8 comfort studies, conducted by

four research teams in a range of cities and seasons [55,59,60]. These Fig. 7. Relation between the observed neutral skin temperature and the time-
particular studies were selected because in these published studies weighted mean experienced air temperature. Note: each point represents the
subjects’ activity level was the same as that in the present study (i.e., 1.0 neutral skin temperature in a particular city in a particular season. The data
met, seating posture with reading/writing). This permits the effects of used to calculate the neutral skin temperature is from [55,59,60].
the psychological adaptation level on the neutral skin temperature to be
disentangled from those of the activity level, as shown in Eq. (2). In
addition, in these selected studies air velocities were too low to affect the tskin,n = 0.3131 × tin,m + 26.624, R2 = 0.8121 (18)
convective heat transfer, and thus had no impacts on the neutral skin
where tskin,n is the neutral skin temperature, tout,m is the mean outdoor
temperature calculation. It should be noted that the neutral skin tem­
air temperature, and tin,m is the mean indoor air temperature.
peratures were calculated using the human heat balance equation.
As shown in Eqs. (17) and (18), the correlation coefficient between
Fig. 6 shows the relation between the observed neutral skin tem­
the neutral skin temperature and the outdoor air temperature is lower
perature and the mean outdoor/indoor air temperature. Each point in
than that between the neutral skin temperature and the indoor air
Fig. 6 represents the neutral skin temperature in a particular city in a
temperature, indicating the outdoor temperature has less influence on
particular season. Seen from Fig. 6, the neutral skin temperature
the neutral skin temperature than the indoor temperature.
increased with the outdoor/indoor air temperature.
People spend more than 80% of their time indoors [61]. We assumed
The regression equation of neutral skin temperature on mean out­
85% of people’s time indoors and 15% outdoors to calculate the
door temperature and indoor temperature are presented as follows:
time-weighted mean experienced air temperature tm (i.e., tm = 0.85tin,m
tskin,n = 0.0943 × tout,m + 32.46, R2 = 0.6874 (17) + 0.15tout,m). Fig. 7 shows the relation between the observed neutral

8
L. Zhuang et al.
Fig. 8. Relation between the neutral operative temperature and the clothing
insulation. Note: each point represents the neutral operative temperature in a
particular city in a particular season. The data is from [55,59,60].
skin temperature and the mean experienced air temperature. Each point
in Fig. 7 represents the neutral skin temperature in a particular city in a
particular season.
The regression equation of neutral skin temperature on mean expe­
rienced air temperature is presented as follows:
tskin,n = 0.2877 × tm + 27.554, R2 = 0.9522 (19)
where tm is the mean experienced air temperature.
As shown in Eq. (19), the correlation coefficient (R2 = 0.9522) be­
tween the neutral skin temperature and the mean experienced air tem­
perature is higher than that (R2 = 0.6874) between the neutral skin
temperature and the mean outdoor temperature and that (R2 = 0.8121)
between the neutral skin temperature and the mean indoor temperature,
indicating the mean experienced air temperature has greater influence
on the neutral skin temperature than the mean outdoor/indoor air
temperature. This also shows that both the indoor climate and outdoor
climate have the effects on psychological adaptation.
Fig. 9. Mathematical model of PMV [8]. The PMV-used neutral skin temperature and the sensitivity of PMV to thermal load change are only dependent on the
activity level. Note: tskin,n is the neutral skin temperature, and W is the mechanical work which is zero [8].
9
Physiology & Behavior 247 (2022) 113724
As another evidence of thermal adaptation, Fig. 8 exhibits the change
in neutral operative temperature with clothing insulation. Subjects had
positively correlated relations between the neutral operative tempera­
ture and the clothing insulation, particularly when clothing thermal
resistance ranged from 0.4 clo to 0.6 clo. A potential explanation of this
counterintuitive phenomenon is subjects adapted to their thermal en­
vironments by psychological adaptation (i.e., the change in neutral skin
temperature).
4.6. Developing an adaptive heat balance model
Two conceptual models of thermal comfort have emerged, one called
as the heat balance model and the other as the adaptive model. The PMV
model is the heat balance model of thermal comfort, which can take into
account behavioral adjustment but ignores psychological adaptation
[10]. In comparison, the adaptive model recognizes the psychological
adaptation, but is presented on the basis of the outdoor temperature
[26]. The main adaptive models [26,62] are ‘black box’ models because
the inner-relations between the thermal comfort and the outdoor
climate are not fully defined. Hence, an adaptive heat balance (AHB)
model can be developed by adding psychological adaptation into the
PMV model.
Fig. 9 shows the mathematical model of PMV [8]. It can be seen in
Fig. 9 that the PMV model is based on two assumptions. First, the neutral
skin temperature is only dependent on the activity level. Second, the
sensitivity of PMV to thermal load change is only influenced by the
activity level. However, the actual neutral skin temperature is not only
dependent on the activity level but also affected by the psychological
adaptation level, as shown in Eq. (2). Meanwhile, the sensitivity of AMV
to thermal load change (i.e., the sensitivity of AMV to change in physical
parameters, such as air temperature or clothing insulation) is not only
influenced by the activity level, but also by the psychological adaptation
level, as shown in Eq. (5).
Therefore, there are two steps to develop the AHB model of thermal
comfort. The first step is to change the PMV-used neutral skin temper­
ature into the observed neutral skin temperature in experiments which
varies according to psychological adaptation. The second step is to
L. Zhuang et al.
replace the sensitivity of PMV to thermal load change with the observed
sensitivity of AMV to thermal load change in experiments which varies
owing to psychological adaptive processes. In result, the AHB model can
take into account behavioral adjustment and psychological adaptation,
and thus improve accuracy in predicting thermal sensation.
5. Conclusions
Through a long-term tracking survey within a year in a naturally
ventilated building, this paper studied building occupants’ adaptation to
hot environments in summer and cold conditions in winter. The main
findings are as follows.
1) Occupants can adapt to their thermal environments by psychological
adaptation. Psychological adaptation not only has impacts on the
neutral skin temperature but also on the thermal sensitivity to skin/
operative temperature change. In warm or hot environments, the
higher the psychological adaptation, the higher the neutral skin
temperature, while in cold conditions it is the opposite. In addition,
the higher the psychological adaptation, the lower the sensitivity to
skin/operative temperature variation.
2) The change trend of occupants’ neutral skin temperature is that it is
elevated in summer while lowered in winter due to psychological
adaptive processes. Meanwhile, occupant’ sensitivities to operative
temperature variation were lower than the PMV predicts both in
summer and winter owing to psychological adaptation.
3) The higher the temperature which subjects experienced indoors and
outdoors, the higher the neutral skin temperature. This means both
the indoor climate and outdoor climate have impacts on subjects’
psychological adaptation. The indoor neutral operative temperature
increases with clothing insulation, and a potential explanation of this
counterintuitive phenomenon is that subjects adapt to the warm or
cool environments in which they live by psychological adaptation.
4) The occupants’ neutral skin temperature is 35.3 ◦ C and the adapta­
tion factor is 0.78 in summer, and these values are 32.5 ◦ C and 0.85
in winter. For determining more accurate neutral skin temperatures
and adaptation factors, further studies with larger sample size and
higher survey frequency should be conducted.
References
[1] L. Yang, H. Yan, J. Lam, Thermal comfort and building energy consumption
implications – a review, Appl. Energy 115 (15) (2014) 164–173.
[2] J.F. Nicol, M.A. Humphreys, Adaptive thermal comfort and sustainable thermal
standards for buildings, Energy Build 34 (2002) 563–572.
[3] R.T. Hellwig, D. Teli, A framework for adopting adaptive thermal comfort
principles in design and operation of buildings, Energy Build 205 (2019), 109476.
[4] G. Yun, J. Lee, K. Steemers, Extending the applicability of the adaptive comfort
model to the control of air-conditioning systems, Build. Environ. 105 (2016)
13–23.
[5] Y. Ji, Z. Wang, Thermal adaptation and logistic regression analysis of thermal
comfort in severe cold area based on two case studies, Energy Build 205 (2019),
109560.
[[6]] M. Schweiker, R. Rissetto, A. Wagner, Thermal expectation: influencing factors
and its effect on thermal perception, Energy Build 210 (2020), 109729.
[7] Z. Wang, Y. ji, J. Ren, Thermal adaptation in overheated residential buildings in
severe cold area in China, Energy Build 146 (2017) 322–332.
[8] P.O. Fanger, Thermal Comfort, Analysis and Applications in Environmental
Engineering, Danish Technical Press, Copenhagen, 1970.
[9] J.F. Nicol, M.A. Humphreys, Thermal comfort as part of a self-regulating system,
Build. Res. Pr. 6 (3) (1973) 191–197.
[10] G.S. Brager, R.J. de Dear, Thermal adaptation in the built environment: a literature
review, Energy Build 27 (1998) 83–96.
[[11]] ASHRAE ASHRAE, Standard 55: thermal Environmental Conditions For Human
Occupancy, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers, Atlanta, GA, USA (2017).
[12] C.E.N. CEN, EN15251 Standard, Indoor environmental input parameters for design
and assessment of energy performance of buildings addressing indoor air quality,
thermal environment, lighting and acoustics, European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, Belgium (2007).
[13] G.B. MOHURD, Evaluation Standard for Indoor Thermal Environment in Civil
Buildings, /T 50785, China Architecture & Building Press, Beijing, 2012.
10
Physiology & Behavior 247 (2022) 113724
[14] M. Schweiker, S. Brasche, W. Bischolf, M. Hawighorst, K. Voss, A. Wagner,
Development and validation of a methodology to challenge the adaptive comfort
model, Build. Environ. 49 (0) (2012) 336–347.
[15] M.A. Humphreys, J.F. Nicol, The validity of ISO-PMV for predicting comfort votes
in every-day thermal environments, Energy Build 34 (6) (2002) 667–684.
[16] Y. Li, Y. Rezgui, A. Guerriero, X. Zhang, M. Han, S. Kubicki, D. Yan, Development
of an adaptation table to enhance the accuracy of the predicted mean vote model,
Build. Environ. 168 (2020), 106504.
[17] T. Cheung, S. Schiavon, T. Parkinson, P. Li, Gail Brager, Analysis of the accuracy on
PMV–PPD model using the ASHRAE global thermal comfort database II, Build.
Environ. 153 (2019) 205–217.
[18] R. Yao, B. Li, J. Liu, A theoretical adaptive model of thermal comfort—Adaptive
Predicted Mean Vote (aPMV), Build. Environ. 44 (10) (2009) 2089–2096.
[19] M. Schweiker, A. Wagner, A framework for an adaptive thermal heat balance
model (ATHB), Build. Environ. 94 (2015) 252–262.
[20] P.O. Fanger, J. Toftum, Extension of the PMV model to non-air-conditioned
buildings in warm climates, Energy Build 34 (6) (2002) 533–536.
[[21]] J.F. Wohlwill, Human adaptation to levels of environmental stimulation, Hum
Ecol 2 (2) (1974) 127–147.
[22] M. Nikolopoulou, K. Steemers, Thermal comfort and psychological adaptation as a
guide for designing urban spaces, Energy Build 35 (2003) 95–101.
[23] A.R. Frisancho, Human Adaptation, Univ. of Michigan Press, 1981.
[24] E. Glaser, The Physiological Basis of Habituation (1966).
[25] E. Halawa, J.V. Hoof, The adaptive approach to thermal comfort–a critical
overview, Energy build 51 (4) (2012) 101–110.
[26] R.J. de Dear, G.S. Brager, Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated buildings:
revisions to ASHRAE Standard 55, Energy Build 34 (2002) 549–561.
[27] S. Zaki, S. Damiati, H. Rijal, A. Hagishima, A. Razak, Adaptive thermal comfort in
university classrooms in Malaysia and Japan, Build. Environ. 122 (2017) 294–306.
[28] S. Carlucci, L. Bai, R. de Dear, L. Yang, Review of adaptive thermal comfort models
in built environmental regulatory documents, Build. Environ. 137 (2018) 73–89.
[[29]] Y. Zhang, H. Chen, J. Wang, Thermal comfort of people in the hot and humid
area of China—Impacts of season, climate, and thermal history, Indoor Air 26
(2016) 820–830.
[30] M. Luo, Z. Ke, W. Ji, et al., The time-scale of thermal comfort adaptation in heated
and unheated buildings, Build. Environ. 151 (2019) 175–186.
[31] B. Cao, Y. Zhu, Q. Ouyang, X. Zhou, L. Huang, Field study of human thermal
comfort and thermal adaptability during the summer and winter in Beijing, Energy
Build 43 (2011) 1051–1056.
[[32]] H. Ning, Z. Wang, Y. Ji, Thermal history and adaptation: does a long-term indoor
thermal exposure impact human thermal adaptability? Appl. Energy 183 (2016)
22–30.
[33] Z. Wang, Y. Ji, J. Ren, Thermal adaptation in overheated residential buildings in
severe cold in China, Energy Build 146 (2017) 322–332.
[[34]] J. Yu, Q. Ouyang, Y. Zhu, et al., A comparison of the thermal adaptability of
people accustomed to air-conditioned environments and naturally ventilated
environments, Indoor Air 22 (2012) 110–118.
[35] F. Kalmár, Investigation of thermal perception of subjects with diverse thermal
histories in warm indoor environment, Build. Environ. 107 (2016) 254–262.
[36] G.B. MOHURD, 50176-2016 Thermal Design Code for Civil Building, China
Architecture & Building Press, Beijing, 2016.
[37] S. Jing, Y. Lei, H. Wang, C. Song, X. Yan, Thermal comfort and energy-saving
potential in university classrooms during the heating season, Energy Build 202
(2019), 109390.
[38] ISO, EN ISO 8996, Ergonomics of the Thermal Environment—Determination of
Metabolic Rate, International organization for Standardization, Geneva, 2004.
[39] D. Mitchell, C.H. Wyndham, Comparison of weighting formulas for calculating
mean skin temperature, J. Appl. Physiol. 26 (5) (1969) 616–622.
[40] J.K. Choi, K. Miki, S. Sagawa, K. Shiraki, Evaluation of mean skin temperature
formulas by infrared thermography, Intern. J. Biometeorol. 41 (2) (1997) 68–75.
[41] Y. Yao, Z. Lian, W. Liu, Q. Shen, Experimental study on physiological responses and
thermal comfort under various ambient temperatures, Physiol. Behav. 93 (1–2)
(2008) 310–321.
[[42]] Y. Yao, Z. Lian, W. Liu, C. Jiang, Measurement methods of mean skin
temperatures for the PMV model, HVAC&R Res 14 (2008) 161–174.
[43] S. Hsu, A Thermoregulatory Model for Heat Acclimation and Some of Its
Applications, Kansas State University, 1977.
[44] B. Jai, Prediction of Thermal Sensation from a Simple Thermoregulatory Model,
Kansas State University, 1973.
[45] J.Stolwijk Gagge, Y. Nishi, An effective temperature scale based on a simple model
of human physiological regulatory response, ASHRAE Trans (77) (1971) 247–262.
[46] 2017 ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals (SI), American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, USA (2017), 9.1–9.18.
[47] I.S.O. ISO, 9920 Ergonomics of the Thermal Environment—Estimation of Thermal
Insulation and Water Vapor Resistance of a Clothing Ensemble, International
Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 2009.
[48] E.A. McCullough, B.W. Jones, A comprehensive data for estimating clothing
insulation, ASHRAE Trans 92 (1985) 29–47.
[49] ISO, ISO 7933, Ergonomics of the Thermal Environment—Analytical
Determination and Interpretation of Heat Stress Using Calculation of the Predicted
Heat Strain, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 2004.
[50] D.R. Kenshalo, et al., Cutaneous temperature receptors—Some operating
characteristics for model, Eds, in: J.D. Hardy, et al. (Eds.), Physiological and
Behavioral Temperature Regulation, USA Illinois, 1970, pp. 802–818.
L. Zhuang et al.
[[51]] C.F. Bulcao, S.M. Frank, S.N. Raja, K.M. Tran, D.S. Goldstein, Relative
contribution of core and skin temperature to thermal comfort in humans,
J. Therm. Biol. 25 (2000) 147–150.
[52] E. Simon, F. Pierau, D.C.M. Taylor, Central and peripheral thermal control of
effectors in homeothermic temperature regulation, Physio. Rev. 66 (1986)
235–300.
[53] Y. Wu, H. Liu, B. Chen, B. Li, R. Kosonen, J. Jokisalo, T. Chen, Effect of long-term
thermal history on physiological acclimatization and prediction of thermal
sensation in typical winter conditions, Build. Environ. 179 (2020), 106936.
[54] Y. Yang, B. Li, H. Liu, A study of adaptive thermal comfort in a well-controlled
climate chamber, Appl. Therm. Eng. 76 (2015) 283–291.
[[55]] M. Luo, W. Ji, B. Cao, Q. Ouyang, Y. Zhu, Indoor climate and thermal
physiological adaptation: evidences from migrants with different cold indoor
exposures, Build. Environ. 98 (2016) 30–38.
11
Physiology & Behavior 247 (2022) 113724
[56] I.S.O. ISO, 7726 Ergonomics of the Thermal Environment—Instruments For
Measuring Physical Quantities, International, Organization for Standardization,
Geneva, 1998.
[57] K. Parsons, Human Thermal Environments: the Effects of Hot, Moderate, and Cold
Environments on Human Health, Comfort, and Performance, CRC press, 2014.
[58] X.L. Wang, F.K. Peterson, Estimating thermal transient comfort, ASHRAE Trans 98
(1992) 182–188.
[59] B. Cao, M. Luo, M. Li, Y. Zhu, Too cold or too warm? A winter thermal comfort
study in different climate zones in China, Energy Build 133 (2016) 469–477.
[[60]] C. Chun, A. Kwok, T. Mitamura, N. Miwa, A. Tamura, Thermal diary: connecting
temperature history to indoor comfort, Build. Environ. 43 (2008) 877–885.
[61] R. Zhao, S. Sun, R. Ding, Conditioning strategies of indoor thermal environment in
warm climates, Energy Build 36 (12) (2004) 1281–1286.
[62] M.A. Humphreys, H.B. Rijal, J.F. Nicol, Updating the adaptive relation between
climate and comfort indoors; new insights and an extended database, Build.
Environ. 63 (2013) 40–55.